presented by raven housing trust customer satisfaction research may 2014 emma hopkins

Presented by

Raven Housing TrustCustomer Satisfaction Research

May 2014Emma 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 base100 per month Reduced to 50 during Winter months (November to

February)

A sample of residents who receive the particular service are interviewed50 Cleaning (will include GM questions going forward) 100 Repairs

Telephone calls are conducted among residents every month

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction

Very little change in satisfaction year on year

Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%

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

Above target



Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

An uplift in satisfaction scores evident in last few months:

• February 14, 82% WC / 92% CC• March 14, 86% WC / 92% CC



Below target

Below target

Above target

* STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2012/13, March 2014

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

Industry upper quartile: 89% General needs

94% Housing for older people

Industry upper quartile 85%



Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

‘Ongoing problems’ was the key driver (base 20, 30%), more specifically, the

repair has not yet been completed



Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the key negative driver (base 54, 9%), specific

mentions included “not thorough enough’ or “not frequent enough”



Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

Low score continues



Below target

Below target

Above target

Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Sheltered (2013)

Sheltered (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

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

6%

6%

4%

2%

8%

6%

10%

12%

16%

15%

6%

7%

3%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

10%

11%

88%

87%

92%

93%

89%

89%

91%

90%

86%

85%

90%

74%

74%

85%


Above target

‘Have not seen any workers’ was the reason (base 60, 13%)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Below target


Below target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Below target


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”

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Below target


Below target

Low score continues

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Below target


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

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Below target



Below targetIndustry upper quartile 86%

Increased to 86% in December 2013

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Very little change in satisfaction year on year Value for money satisfaction

87% - 55 years+76% - 35-5478% - 16-34

80% - properties 1941+

72% - properties 1850-1940

83% - happy64% - unhappy

85% - property suits their needs

72% - does not

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Target

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%

7%

9%

15%

14%

11%

12%

9%

10%

15%

16%

9%

8%

84%

81%

70%

70%

85%

81%

81%

86%



Very little change in satisfaction year on year Value for money satisfaction

‘Expensive’ was the key driver (base 74, 33%)

87% - 55 years+76% - 35-5478% - 16-34

80% - properties 1941+

72% - properties 1850-1940

83% - happy64% - unhappy

85% - property suits their needs

72% - does not

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)

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7%

6%

4%

8%

7%

4%

9%

16%

8%

16%

19%

7%

7%

8%

5%

1%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

11%

15%

5%

86%

86%

90%

91%

90%

93%

87%

80%

89%

74%

66%

88%


‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central



(43% vs. 54% south)


(60% vs. 67% south)

Communal cleaning

(35% vs. 50% south)

Window cleaning

(19% vs. 37% south)


(those scoring 5/5)

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7%

6%

4%

8%

7%

4%

9%

16%

8%

16%

19%

7%

7%

8%

5%

1%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

11%

15%

5%

86%

86%

90%

91%

90%

93%

87%

80%

89%

74%

66%

88%


‘Poor quality repairs’ was the key driver in Central (39%, base 10 vs. 17% in

North (4) and South(3))




(43% vs. 54% south)


(60% vs. 67% south)

Communal cleaning

(35% vs. 50% south)

Window cleaning

(19% vs. 37% south)


(those scoring 5/5)

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7%

6%

4%

8%

7%

4%

9%

16%

8%

16%

19%

7%

7%

8%

5%

1%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

11%

15%

5%

86%

86%

90%

91%

90%

93%

87%

80%

89%

74%

66%

88%


‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the key negative driver across all areas

Central – 12% (31)North – 8% (14)South – 5% (9)




(43% vs. 54% south)


(60% vs. 67% south)

Communal cleaning

(35% vs. 50% south)

Window cleaning

(19% vs. 37% south)


(those scoring 5/5)

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7%

6%

4%

8%

7%

4%

9%

16%

8%

16%

19%

7%

7%

8%

5%

1%

3%

2%

3%

4%

2%

11%

15%

5%

86%

86%

90%

91%

90%

93%

87%

80%

89%

74%

66%

88%


‘Have not seen any workers’ was the key mention driver across all areas

Central – 19% (38)North – 12% (16)

South – 5% (6)



Housing services

(33% vs. 43% north and south)

Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money


Central scored 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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%




Housing services


Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money




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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%


‘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



Housing services


Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money




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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%



Central – 8% (24)North – 6% (20)


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



Housing services


Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money




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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%



Central – 8% (24)North – 6% (20)


Such as outstanding repairs or poor quality and repeat visits required



Housing services


Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money




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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%


‘Poor quality work’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas




Housing services


Grounds maintenance

(25% vs. 32% south)

Value for money




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%

10%

9%

8%

16%

14%

11%

11%

13%

9%

9%

12%

9%

17%

15%

16%

8%

9%

7%

81%

79%

83%

67%

71%

73%

81%

77%

84%


‘Expensive’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas



Patch analysis – Overall satisfaction with RavenOverall satisfaction

score 87%Industry upper quartile

89% *

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

etN

orth

Cent

ral

Sout

h

78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94%

89%

84%

88%

87%

83%

85%

87%

91%

90%

88%

92%


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)


• 16-34’s (86% vs. 95% 55+)• Happiness (94% vs. 87% unhappy)• Property suits current needs (93% vs. 85% does not)


• 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

Total sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

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

20%

20%

29%

28%

51%

52%

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

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%

Total sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

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

20%

20%

29%

28%

51%

52%


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%

Benchmark 26%

Total sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

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

20%

20%

29%

28%

51%

52%


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

Total sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

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

20%

20%

29%

28%

51%

52%


Net Promoter Score

31%

32%

NPS score

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

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Frie

ndlin

ess

Know

ledg

e

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

3%

3%

1%

2%

1%

2%

3%

3%

4%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

5%

6%

3%

4%

95%

96%

97%

98%

97%

98%

91%

91%

93%

92%


Staff satisfaction – repairs survey only

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Frie

ndlin

ess

Know

ledg

e

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

3%

3%

1%

2%

1%

2%

3%

3%

4%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

5%

6%

3%

4%

95%

96%

97%

98%

97%

98%

91%

91%

93%

92%


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

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

The

tim

e it

to

ok

to r

esp

on

d t

o y

ou

r q

uer

y /

com

pla

int

Po

liten

ess

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

5%

7%

1%

3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

9%

12%

14%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

4%

7%

7%

8%

8%

7%

8%

92%

89%

96%

94%

95%

94%

89%

87%

84%

83%

81%

79%


Staff satisfaction – housing survey only

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

The

tim

e it

to

ok

to r

esp

on

d t

o y

ou

r q

uer

y /

com

pla

int

Po

liten

ess

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

5%

7%

1%

3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

9%

12%

14%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

4%

7%

7%

8%

8%

7%

8%

92%

89%

96%

94%

95%

94%

89%

87%

84%

83%

81%

79%


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

with enquiries’

Total Sample (2...

Total sample (2...

Total Sample (2...

Total sample (2...

Total Sample (2...

Total sample (2...

Ove

rall

qual

ity o

f rep

air w

ork

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

3%

2%

7%

6%

4%

2%

3%

4%

5%

5%

3%

3%

94%

95%

88%

90%

93%

94%


Workmen satisfaction – repairs

Problem persists(base 25, 36%)

Key themes of dissatisfaction were:

Poor quality work(base 22, 32%)

Inadequate repair work carried out

(base 22, 32%)

Workmen satisfaction – window cleaning

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Keep

ing

dirt

and

mes

s to

a m

inim

umCl

eanl

ines

s of

you

r w

indo

ws

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

16%

13%

7%

6%

3%

2%

14%

13%

15%

17%

14%

18%

39%

43%

13%

15%

70%

70%

79%

76%

58%

55%

73%

72%


Workmen satisfaction – communal cleaning

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Total Sample (2013)

Total sample (2014)

Keep

ing

dirt

and

mes

s to

a m

inim

umCl

eanl

ines

s of

you

r co

mm

unal

are

as

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

13%

11%

9%

10%

2%

2%

12%

14%

4%

5%

4%

5%

14%

15%

5%

6%

83%

84%

87%

86%

84%

83%

83%

81%


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


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


Clearly communicate timescales to

residents / adhere to these

Ensure high standard of workmen and

implement strict quality checks


Housing suggested

improvements

Improve communication

Home improvements / maintenance

Improve timescales to deal with repairs /

enquiries

Other suggestions provided by

residents

Fixed/lower rent rates

More staff

More personal service

Better quality workmen

More focus on the elderly


Introduce inspections / quality checks

following service delivery

Review repairs workmen to deliver

high quality and prompt service

Summary

Summary

North and South residents tended to be more satisfied than Central patches

Slight increase since last yearRepairs satisfaction NPS

High satisfaction across each serviceAlthough 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% South Housing 43% vs. 22% South Repairs 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 communication Improve service delivery

Research Audit

• The purpose of this audit was to review the existing research program, and develop a plan for the financial year 2014-15 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

presented by raven housing trust customer satisfaction research may 2014 emma hopkins

Documents

target slide

satisfaction year

satisfaction scores

cc slide

sample of residents

month slide

overview slide

target ongoing problems