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
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
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
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Above target
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
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
‘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
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
‘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
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
Low score continues
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
‘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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction
Below target
Very little change in satisfaction year on year
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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”
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction
Below target
Very little change in satisfaction year on year
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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 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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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% - 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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
‘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)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
‘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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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
‘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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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
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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 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
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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
‘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)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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
‘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 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%
* 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
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%
Detractors (rated 0-6) Passives (rated 7-8) Promoters (rated 9-10)
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%
Detractors (rated 0-6) Passives (rated 7-8) Promoters (rated 9-10)
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%
Detractors (rated 0-6) Passives (rated 7-8) Promoters (rated 9-10)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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 rates
More staff
More personal service
Better 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
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
Top Related