1. Customer Satisfaction Research Produced for: Raven Housing Trust – November 2012 Presented by Emma Hopkins Customer Satisfaction Research Produced for: Raven Housing Trust – November 2012 Presented by Emma Hopkins

2. Results Total Sample: 2962 September 2011 – September 2012

3. Raven Overview Satisfaction levels remain high with overall satisfaction with Raven exceeding its target of 79% (89% overall, 94% sheltered) High in the South (90%) and Cleaning (90%) 93% among 55+ age group Patch H – Woodhatch, Reigate, Salfords, Horley (93%) KPI met for Repairs and maintenance, overall satisfaction (88%, 90% Q2) However, below target for window cleaning, communal cleaning services, grounds maintenance and VFM with further decreases this quarter NPS score of 31 overall An increase of 6% this quarter compared with Q1 Higher in the South (38%), but lower in the North (30%) Higher among sheltered residents (46%, -4%)

4. Raven Overview Three quarters of customers have access to the internet overall. As to be expected, 16-34 year olds have greater access (73% at home, 20% elsewhere) However, this group still appear to be more demanding – satisfaction significantly lower across the board this age group also feeling less valued Feeling valued has a significant impact on NPS (Yes 48% vs. No -60%)

5. Overview –Total Sample The profile of customers surveyed are detailed below Base: Repairs 1266, Housing 1097, Cleaning 599

6. Overall Satisfaction with Raven

7. 94% in South. Only 86% in North, although an increase of 9% 85% in North rising to 91% in South 86% in South rising to 93% in North

8. Overall Satisfaction with Raven 16-34’s least satisfied, 74% rising to 89% among the 55+

9. Raven KPI’s On / above target Cleaning windows has reduced in satisfaction since last quarter (-5% to 74%) Communal cleaning has remained static this quarter

10. Raven KPI’s On / above target Cleaning windows has reduced in satisfaction since last quarter (-5% to 74%) Communal cleaning has remained static this quarter

11. Raven KPI’s A decrease of 6% since last quarter A decrease of 7% since last quarter A decrease of 4% since last quarter 30% of those who were dissatisfied stated ‘Communication issues / lack of communication’ 23% stated ‘Poor timescales to deal with enquiries / complaints’ 35% of those who were dissatisfied stated ‘Poor quality work’ 60% of those who were dissatisfied stated is was ‘Expensive’

12. Internet / Mobile Phone Access As expected, the younger customers has greater access to the internet and own a mobile phone 86% of customers own a mobile phone and of those 45% use their phone to access the internet Nokia’ and Apple iPhone owned more than any other (24% and 15%)

13. Repairs and Maintenance

14. 1266 interviews achieved (700 Y1, 266 Q1, 300 Q2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance services High levels of satisfaction for service - 88% overall (+2% to 90% for Q2) With lowest satisfaction among the 16-34’s (83%, 92% among 55+) Communication and timescales still an issue NPS increase of 6% this quarter compared with last year (42%) Repairs & Maintenance

15. NPS for this quarter has increased by 8% when compared with last year (+13% since last quarter) ‘Had no problems’ (21%) and ‘Deal with queries quickly’ / ‘Good service’ (20% each) were the main reasons among promoters Repairs & Maintenance – NPS

16. Repairs & Maintenance Demographically, the score is lowest among the younger age groups (16-34, 35-54) and Central patch 26%, 23%, 28% respectively NPS was 49% in the South patch Reasons among promoters included ‘Had no problems’ (28%), ‘Good service’ (26%) and ‘Deal with enquiries quickly’ (20%) Main reasons among detractors (101 sample) was ‘Had problems in the past’ (18%), 24% among 35-54’s The main reason among 16-34’s was ‘Timescales’ (21% - 5) Central patch highlighted ‘General dissatisfaction (29%) as being the main reason Been waiting for a shower fixed for 7 months

17. Repairs Service Satisfaction

18. Right First Time? 17% stated Raven didn’t get it Right First Time, 15% Q2 The main reasons remain similar For October, a significant decrease for Staff helpfulness (-10% to 88%) Mainly due to a 12% difference between those who were very satisfied last month compared to this month (68% / 56%) The main reason for dissatisfaction was 'Attitudes of phone staff (rude / lack of knowledge / lack of concern)' (49%) Communication issues (24%, 21% Q2) Two key areas – Lack of communication between Raven departments and the customer, and multiple calls made by the customer to chase 28% South. 19% Central

19. Overall Satisfaction with Repairs Overall satisfaction with repairs increased this quarter (+4% to 90%) Difference among the demographic groups are visible North (86%), 16-34 (83%) and 35-54 (86%) least satisfied

20. Overall Satisfaction with Repairs Overall satisfaction with repairs increased this quarter (+4% to 90%) Difference among the demographic groups are visible North (86%), 16-34 (83%) and 35-54 (86%) least satisfied ‘Communication issues / lack of communication’ was the main reason (35% North, 42% 16-34, 22% 35-54) I was dissatisfied with Raven due to their lack of communication during the repair

21. Suggested Improvements 31% suggested improvements (32% Q1/Q2) Communication (25%, 22% Q2) Timescales to deal with repairs / enquiries (21%, 18% Q2) 40% among 16-34’s 32% in the North, only 8% Central The areas for improvement remain the same as last year

22. Housing Services

23. 1097 interviews achieved (500 Y1, 301 Q1, 296 Q2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with general housing services There are a few changes when comparing total sample with Q2 data A slight increase in satisfaction for housing services provided (85% Total, 87% Q2) A decrease in NPS this quarter to 22% (27% Q1, 28% Total) Greatest satisfaction among 55+ group (88%) and Central patch (91%) Other than ‘General satisfaction’, ‘Never had any problems’ is the main satisfaction reason (40% & 25%) Q2 - Rising to 38% 55+ and 32% North patch Q2 - 0% among 16-34 (64 sample) 19% Central and South Main detractor reasons were ‘Had problems in the past’ (22%) and ‘Would not recommend’ (18%) Note: small base size

24. Housing Services 83% felt Raven value them a customer (84% Y1, 79% Q2) Of those that don’t feel valued, ‘Raven don’t care’ is the main reason (35% total sample, 13% Q2 – 7 customers) Suggested improvements at 32% (31% Q2) 37% among 16-34’s and 35-54 age groups ‘Improve communication’ (-5% to 28% since last quarter) 33% among 35-54 age group 29% 16-34’s, Central and South patch To be able to speak to people in person, for them to actually get back to you when they say they will and for them to care I think they should listen more to what your saying and take it into consideration what's going on

25. Homes and Neighbourhood A decrease compared with last quarter and year 1. Increase of 1% Anti-social behaviour (21%) Expensive (24%) Ongoing problems with property (24%) In October, satisfaction towards ‘Value for money’ increased by 3% to 79%, yet still below target

26. Grounds Maintenance Satisfaction ratings have decreased for grounds maintenance, (-5% to 66%) when comparing Total sample with Q2 Although in October, this increased to 69% ‘Overall quality of grass cutting’ increased by 8% during October (83%) Satisfaction towards ‘Attitude of the workers’ has increased to 72%, + 5% Dissatisfaction only 3% ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’ down 5% to 80% Lower among South patch (70%, 63% Q2) Higher among 16-34’s (79%, 75% Q2) Higher in Central (85%) Lower in North (78%) and South (76%) ‘Poor quality work’ is the main reason for dissatisfaction (26%). 27% still believe they don’t receive any grounds maintenance

27. Suggested Improvements 32% suggested improvements (31% Q2) Communication (28%, 30% Q2) Home improvements / maintenance (13%, 11% Q2) Improve timescales to deal with repair / enquiries (11%, 9% Q2) Higher in Central, South (29%) and 35- 44’s (33%) Higher in South (16%) and 35-54’s (18%) Higher in South (17%) and 16-34’s (21%) Literal comments indicate customers would like Raven to listen to them

28. Cleaning Services

29. Cleaning Services Overview 599 interviews achieved (300 Y1, 151 Q2, 148 Q2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with the cleaning service NPS has increased to 28% this quarter, 23% overall (24% Y1) 16-34’ Q2 is 39% (sample of 26), a significant increase (15% overall) Overall, North 16%, South 33% A slight decrease for overall satisfaction with the window cleaning service -2% to 76% Overall, 74% Q2 Q2 - 86% North, 67% Central Although a decrease, the main reason provided was ‘Good quality cleaning’ (37%, 36% Q2)

30. Cleaning Services Overview Little change in overall satisfaction with Communal Cleaning (88%, 89% Q2) Q2 ranging from 86% Central to 93% 35-54’s In October, an increase across all satisfaction ratings is visible, ranging from 2% for ‘Overall quality of communal cleaning’ to 7% for ‘Overall satisfaction with communal cleaning services’

31. Window Cleaning Services No change for have suggested improvements for window cleaning service (32%) ‘Attitude of workers’ remains lowest rated (68%, 53% Q2) ‘Overall quality of window cleaning’ receives the most dissatisfaction, although a 3% decrease, now at 15% North patch increased satisfaction to 85% (+4%) with the staff ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’, lowest among Central (81%) Q2 – Central, South and 35-54’s is only 46%. Note small base size Higher among 16-34’s and Central (17% and 16%) Dissatisfaction levels among the 16-34’s still are much higher than the others (15%, 6% 55+) ‘Clean more often’ was the main suggestion (33%), particularly among Central (38%) and younger residents (39% 16-34’s, 36% 35-54’s).

32. Little change in overall satisfaction with Communal Cleaning (88%, 89% Q2) Q2 ranging from 86% Central to 93% 35-54’s 30% (-2%) have suggested improvements for communal cleaning Communal Cleaning Overview ‘More effort / more time needed’ (25%) was the main reason, more so among 55+ (40%) and the South (28%) ‘Clean more areas’ was another key improvement (19%), more so among South patch (25%) and 35-54’s (21%)

33. Communal Cleaning Overview A decrease this quarter, although satisfaction for ‘Attitude of the workers’ remains high (89%, 84% Q2) ‘Cleanliness of your communal areas’ receives the most dissatisfaction (-3% to 10%) Dissatisfaction levels are much higher in Central patch (14%) and 16-34’s (15%) for ‘Overall quality of communal cleaning’ Central patch more dissatisfied than North & South for ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’ (84%, 93% and 94% respectively) Particularly in the South (92%), North only 86% (-9%) 14% among 16-34’s compared with 7% among 35-54’s

34. Net Promoter Score -2% 3146253132292336283025 38 NPS An increase of 6% since last quarter ‘Would recommend / have recommended’ and ‘Had no problems ’ each increased by 3% among promoters, this quarter No significant change since last quarter

35. Net Promoter Score -2% 3146253132292336283025 38 NPS An increase of 3% since last quarter This quarter ‘Had no problems’ (19%) and ‘Good service’ (17%) were the main reasons among promoters Although the main detractor reasons include ‘Communication problems’ (14%) and ‘ Had problems in the past’ (12%)

36. 3148-60-81-72442024433528 Net Promoter Score NPS Q2, 55+ and Cleaning feel more valued (91% and 90%). Those feeling least valued were 16-34’s (77%) and Housing (79%) ‘Repairs / Maintenance still outstanding’ was the main reason (14% cleaning, 22% 16-34’s) ‘Raven don’t care’ was main reason among Housing customers 1% decrease since last quarter. ‘Had problems in the past’ (14%) was the main reason among detractors

37. Net Promoter Score 34302824312119344231 NPS Although an increase of 6% since last quarter ‘Good staff / workmen’ was the main promoter reason Q2 (20% - 3) An decrease of 4% since last quarter ‘Had problems in the past’ was the main detractor reason Q2 (18% - 3)

38. Conclusions

39. Overall Sample Satisfaction levels remain high with overall satisfaction with Raven exceeding its target KPI’s still below target for window cleaning, communal cleaning services, grounds maintenance and VFM However, improvements have been seen in all areas during October Repairs Communication and timescales still an issue NPS lowest among the 16-34’s High level of satisfaction with repairs service overall, although still lowest among 16-34’s Conclusions

40. Housing High levels of satisfaction with service, although a decrease in key scores : NPS, 0% among 16-34’s Feeling valued Home and neighbourhood satisfaction decrease Grounds maintenance Conclusions

41. Window cleaning Attitude of workers remains lowest rated Central, South and 35-54’s Most dissatisfied with overall quality of window cleaning, although a slight improvement Communal cleaning Needing more time and clean more areas has been highlighted as an issue again this quarter Cleanliness of communal areas received the most dissatisfaction Conclusions

42. Differences between the areas Housing services Expectations re: cleaning Value for money Lower satisfaction for grounds maintenance Lower satisfaction among the younger residents Key Areas of Focus - Introduction

43. Differences between the areas Still significant differences by area, mainly higher in the South, lower in the North. Although vice versa for Housing services What are the reasons for these differences? Can we learn anything from the South? Decrease for housing services Housing services has seen a decrease for most key scores; Communication issues such as Raven don’t listen to residents and keep in contact, expensive property and improve homes highlighted – how can these areas be addressed? Expectations re: cleaning Still work to do to set expectations / keep people informed re cleaning. What is the best way to do this? Key Areas of Focus

44. Value for money Value for money – again can expectations be set (compared to the private sector) or breakdown of costs explained? Lower satisfaction for grounds maintenance Grounds maintenance received lower scores in the South and issues in relation to the quality work such as removing the weeds and cut grass Feedback to Burleys ready for March Lower satisfaction among the younger residents Younger residents still feel less valued and least satisfied How can we understand them and deliver to their needs? Key Areas of Focus

45. From November we are including property type and tenancy length to the survey so we can begin to analyse in more depth any potential links between this and the key scores Are they any other aspects we need to consider which may have an impact on scores? Next steps

46. 48 Leazes Park Road Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4PG T 0191 261 5261 emma@explainresearch.co.uk www.explainresearch.co.uk