Bridge Housing 2015 Tenant Satisfaction Survey

Bridge Housing 2015 Tenant Satisfaction Survey DRAFT Report prepared by NSW Federation of Housing Associations April 2015 -

This report was prepared by: Maja Frölich and Snap Research NSW Federation of Housing Associations Suite 301, 64-76 Kippax St Surry Hills 2010, NSW E: MajaF@communityhousing.org.au T: 02 9281 7144 W: www.communityhousing.org.au

Contents Bridge Housing 2015 Tenant Satisfaction Survey... 1 Introduction... 2 Methodology... 3 Response rate... 5 Statistical reliability... 7 Executive summary and recommendations... 8 Overall summary and comparative analysis... 11 Summary of findings and recommendations... 19 Section 1: Demographics... 24 Section 2: Housing services... 32 Section 4: Complaints and appeals... 36 Section 5: Repairs and maintenance... 38 Section 6: Neighbourhood... 42 Section 7: Communication... 45 Section 8: Tenant engagement... 48 Section 9: Quality of life... 51 Section 10: Tenant priorities and gap analysis... 52 Analysis by region... 55 Analysis by program... 56 Comments... 57 Page 1

Introduction This report provides the findings of the independent tenant satisfaction survey conducted by the NSW Federation of Housing Associations (the Federation) on behalf of Bridge Housing in 2015. The aims of this survey are to: Establish tenant satisfaction with services in line with the National Regulatory System for Community Housing (NRSCH). Benchmark performance levels against the Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group. Compare results to previous tenant satisfaction surveys. Inform future service delivery improvements. Using the Federation brings significant benefits, including an impartial and independent data collection and analysis service, access to best practice questions and entry into the Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group. The Federation is the industry peak body for mainstream community housing providers in NSW. Our independence, combined with our knowledge of the industry and our knowledge of and commitment to tenant engagement means we deliver an impartial and in-depth analysis of the information provided to us by tenants. The Federation has developed its tenant satisfaction survey to include a range of good practices. The Federation also manages the most comprehensive tenant satisfaction benchmarking service in Australia. The Federation thank everyone who participated in this important survey. Page 2

Methodology The core questions used in this survey were developed following an extensive year-long consultation with the NSW community housing industry, including tenants. The core questions and survey methodology also drew upon UK best practice contained in House Mark s STAR tenant satisfaction survey. Additional questions were included to meet the specific needs of Bridge Housing. The final questionnaire and survey methodology complied with the requirements of the National Regulatory System for Community Housing (NRSCH). The questionnaire contained the following 10 sections: 1. Demographic information. 2. Housing services. 3. Supported housing. 4. Complaints and appeals. 5. Repairs and maintenance. 6. Neighbourhood. 7. Communication. 8. Tenant engagement. 9. Quality of life. 10. Tenant priorities. A census approach was used and all 1674 households managed by Bridge Housing were invited to participate in the survey. Fieldwork (when tenants are asked to complete the survey) commenced on the 27th January 2015 and ended on the 5th March 2015. Responses received by date 120 100 92 102 80 60 56 49 Not valid 40 31 30 36 38 Valid 20 0 4 26 21 21 17 17 16 15 11 10 15 16 11 4 6 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 18 5 Page 3

The survey was conducted using a postal questionnaire. Questionnaires were posted to all households together with a covering letter and a prepaid response envelope. The survey was also available online and on a smartphone. To increase response rates, three SMS reminder messages were sent on the 17 th February, 23rd February and 2 nd March 2015. In order to make the tenant survey accessible to its diverse tenant group Bridge Housing had the survey translated into the five community languages most frequently spoken by its tenants Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish and Vietnamese. As can be seen in the response rate section below, there were excellent response rates to the translated surveys and Bridge Housing are to be commended for taking this step to widen access to the survey process. To encourage tenants to participate in the survey, Bridge Housing offered a prize draw to win one of two gift $100 gift cards and one of six $50 gift cards. By the closing date of the 5th March 2015, the Federation received a total of 698 responses of which 680 were valid 1, representing an overall valid response rate of 41%. This is above the NRSCH threshold (25%) and well above the Federation s benchmark average (34%). The distribution of questionnaire returns is illustrated in the responses received by date chart displayed above. All returned valid questionnaires were scanned using specialist data capture and research software (Snap). All data and qualitative comments were carefully validated to ensure accuracy. In the report where we have presented a combined satisfaction rate this is calculated by adding the percentages of respondents in the satisfied and very satisfied categories. Reference to a combined dissatisfaction rate is calculated by adding the percentages of respondents in the dissatisfied and very dissatisfied categories. Please note that percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 1 The Federation has adopted the NRSCH definition of a valid response based on guidance in NRSCH (2014) Registration Return Guide (1.4.3: Numbers of surveys returned) Page 4

Response rate The NRSCH sets standards which define whether a returned tenant survey should be counted as valid. The NRSCH states that if a returned survey does not include a response to the overall satisfaction question it should not be counted as a valid response. Using this definition the Federation received a total of 680 valid questionnaires. This gives a sufficient overall response rate of 41%, well above the NRSCH threshold (25%), and also well above the Federation s industry average 34%. The chart below shows the proportion of responses by different regions this is in red (i.e. the percentage of total responses which are from a particular region). It also shows the individual response rate for each region this is in grey. This illustrates that there was a higher response rate from Bridge Housing s West region (44%) compared to the East region (38%). Response rate by region 50% 45% 44% 40% 38% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 21% 20% Response rate per region % of total responses 0% East West Page 5

Response rate by language Row Labels Valid Response rate Arabic 32 36% Cantonese 15 48% English 545 40% Mandarin 25 74% Spanish 26 63% Vietnamese 37 37% Grand Total 680 41% Page 6

Statistical reliability The margin of error is the range of accuracy for a question. The confidence level tells you how sure we are of this result. For this survey, the margin of error for a response receiving a mark of 50% is +/- 2.9 with a 95% confidence level. To explain what a margin of error of +/- 2.9 means, if 50% of respondents pick yes to a yes/no question, then we can be 95% certain that if the question had been asked to all tenants then between 47.1% (50 3.5) and 52.9% (50 + 2.9) would have picked that answer (assuming a representative sample completed the survey). By way of example if 90% of respondents pick yes to a yes/no question, then the margin would be smaller with a margin of error of +/- 1.74. This means that when analysing the results using a base of all respondents, Bridge Housing can have a very high degree of confidence that the views of respondents reflect the views of all its tenants. It is noted that the margin of error differs for each question, as it is dependent on the number of responses received as well as the spread of responses for each question. Please note the low number of respondents when looking at data by program and region. As a result they have a larger margin of error; therefore their results should be treated with caution. We have not quoted results where the margins of error are more than +/-20%. Page 7

Executive summary and recommendations Section overview This section summarises the key headline findings of the survey and compares the Bridge Housing tenant satisfaction survey 2015 results with the NRSCH thresholds and current Federation industry benchmarks. Headlines The headlines for the 2015 tenant satisfaction survey are as follows: There has been a slight decrease in the key indicator of overall satisfaction with services since the 2013 survey. While still high, and certainly well above the NRSCH benchmark of 75%, overall satisfaction with Bridge services fell from 84% in 2013 to 81% in 2015. Similarly, there has also been a small decline in satisfaction with repairs and maintenance, which fell from 77% in 2013 to 75% in 2015. In addition to satisfaction with the overall service and repairs, satisfaction with three customer service indicators also declined: satisfaction with the way Bridge Housing provides information, the helpfulness of staff and timeliness when answering tenants queries all declined by 5%. There has been a small rise in the response rate. The 2015 survey achieved an excellent 41% response rate, building on the 40% response rate from 2013. This high response rate means that Bridge Housing can have a very high level of confidence in the data there is a margin of error of +/-2.9 for the survey overall. Some other positive results include: There were some excellent results related to the location of the home, suitability of the home to tenants circumstances, transport and services available in the area, the neighbourhood as a place to live and safety of the home. Satisfaction in these areas was excellent, in the 86% to 91% range. There were large increases in satisfaction with different elements of the complaints service. Satisfaction with complaints handling overall rose by 10%, from 39% in 2013 to 49% in 2015. Satisfaction with the speed with which the complaint was dealt with rose 8% and satisfaction with how well tenants were kept informed about the progress of their complaint rose 6%. There were also very good satisfaction rates with value for money (84%), property condition (84%), and communication (84%). Bridge s results for the 2015 survey were below the industry average for four headline areas contained in the Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking club: overall services, repairs, property condition and complaints. This included the two key indicators of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with repairs and maintenance: Page 8

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Result compared to the Federation benchmark Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides? Result compared to the Federation benchmark As a community housing provider working in metropolitan areas, it is possible that the demographics of the tenants housed are a contributing factor to these below industry average results. The Federation s benchmarking club contains data from both metro based CHPs as well as providers that operate mainly in regional areas. There is some international research that suggests that rural locations tend to generate higher satisfaction scores than urban locations. 2 Bridge Housing s results for neighbourhood, communication and tenant engagement were slightly above the industry average. Please see the Comparative Analysis section below for a listing of the main rises and falls in satisfaction, and for detailed comparisons with the Federation tenant satisfaction benchmarking club. When results were analysed by region and program, it was found that there were few statistically significant differences in tenant satisfaction between programs and regions. Recommendations While there were some important areas where satisfaction has increased since the last survey, especially in dealing with complaints and also satisfaction with the out of hours repairs service, there are a number of areas where there have been some small declines in satisfaction. While the picture overall is of continuing high levels of satisfaction, the Federation s recommendation is that Bridge Housing should consider targeting additional activity on some priority areas that have experienced declines in satisfaction since the 2013 survey, with a focus on: 2 Lewis N, Raine D, and Howe V, (2014) Latest thinking on drivers of social housing tenant and resident satisfaction, HouseMark Page 9

Repairs and maintenance This is because tenants once again identified repairs and maintenance as their top priority (see gap analysis section.) There has been a small (-2%) drop in overall satisfaction with the repairs service since 2013. This indicator now sits exactly on the NRSCH threshold of 75% satisfaction. Satisfaction with the quality of repairs has experienced a larger decline (- 4%) to 74%. While satisfaction with property condition is very good, it is marginally below the industry average at 84%. Taken together, these factors suggest that additional work with tenants and contractors may be necessary to make improvements. It is also recommended that Bridge Housing focus carefully on the specific repairs comments collected in the comments toolkit provided as part of this survey in order to ascertain if there are any trends in the repairs comments made by tenants. Overall satisfaction with housing services. It is unclear why there have been declines in overall satisfaction with housing services. While satisfaction is still very strong at 81%, this important indicator is now on a declining trend covering three surveys going back to 2012, when satisfaction for this indicator was 85%. Certain customer services indicators There is a bundle of customer services indicators that have declined. It is possible that this has contributed to the slight decline in overall satisfaction and is therefore worth further investigation. For example did you find Bridge Housing's staff helpful or unhelpful declined 3% from 79% to 76%. In this years survey 25% of tenants rated Bridge Housing staff as either unhelpful or neither helpful nor unhelpful. The ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently also dropped by 4%, now at 77%. On the other hand there are a many positive comments for staff and Bridge Housing generally in the comments toolkit. There are many areas where the focus should be on maintaining services where Bridge Housing tenants have reported high levels of satisfaction. There have been steady levels of satisfaction in: neighbourhood, tenant engagement, value for money, Bridge Housing listening and acting on tenants input amongst others. Page 10

Overall summary and comparative analysis Comparisons to the Federation s benchmark group The Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group is an expanding reference group with 16 community housing organisations currently participating. There are currently 11 sets of 2014/5 data from NSW based CHPs and five sets of data from interstate CHPs one each from the ACT, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and WA. The CHPs in the benchmarking group are generally larger organisations with 12 tier one CHPs 3 and four tier two CHPs included. The Federation s benchmarking tool allows comparisons by tier. The data shown in the benchmarking comparison points is based on the most recent six monthly update of data, dating from February 2015. Overall satisfaction with Bridge Housing s services was below the Federation s benchmark: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Result compared to the Federation benchmark Tenant satisfaction with repairs and maintenance was also slightly below the Federation benchmark: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides? Result compared to the Federation benchmark Comparison to NRSCH benchmarks The NRSCH sets a 75% satisfaction threshold for the following items. The actual level of satisfaction achieved by Bridge Housing has been compared in the table below: Satisfaction with housing services: Federation benchmark 86%; Bridge Housing satisfaction rate 81%. Satisfaction with condition of property: Federation benchmark 86%; Bridge Housing satisfaction rate 84%. Satisfaction with repairs service: Federation benchmark 77%; Bridge Housing satisfaction rate 75%. 3 Or equivalent, where NRSCH Tiers do not apply Page 11

Comparison summary The table below provides a summary of overall combined satisfaction 4 with key service areas and a comparison with NRSCH thresholds and current Federation benchmarks. Overall Satisfaction Bridge Housing 2015 satisfaction NRSCH thresholds Difference Bridge Housing & NRSCH threshold Current Federation benchmark Difference Bridge Housing & Federation benchmark) Housing services 81% (+/-3) 75% +6% 86% -5% Repairs 75% (+/-5) 75% - 78% -3% Property condition 84% (+/-3) 75% +9% 87% -3% Complaints 49% (+/-11) 51% -2% Neighbourhood 86% (+/-3) 84% +2% Communication 84% (+/-3) 83% +1% Tenant engagement 80% (+/-3) 77% +3% 4 The combined satisfaction rate is calculated by adding the percentages of respondents in the satisfied and very satisfied categories Page 12

SWOR Matrix The chart below plots the absolute difference between the Bridge Housing 2015 results and the 2013 results, plus the relative differences against the Federation benchmark data for the KPIs. Results are plotted on a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity and Risk (SWOR) matrix. This analysis helps to identify which areas are most in need of attention. The areas that are both below the Federation benchmark and failing are identified as the areas of greatest concern. Page 13

SWOR Matrix for Bridge Housing 3 of the 7 KPIs available for analysis fall within the Weakness quadrant according to this analysis, with the improvement in complaints handling the major positive change. Tenant engagement, neighbourhood and communications are all above the industry average from the Federation s latest benchmarking data. Page 14

Best and worst performing areas The next section of the report describes satisfaction and dissatisfaction with key service areas and identifies possible service improvements. The table below lists service areas with the highest levels of satisfaction. Overall the results represent very good outcomes in certain aspects of Bridge Housing s services, including satisfaction with neighbourhood issues such as transport in the area and suitability of the home. Question % Satisfied Margin of error Transport available in your area 91% +/-2% Suitability of your home to your circumstances 91% +/-2% Services available in your area 89% +/-2% The location of your home 89% +/-2% Size of your home 89% +/-2% Safety of your home 87% +/-3% Neighbourhood as a place to live 86% +/-3% Value for money for rent 84% +/-3% Condition of home 84% +/-3% The staff were helpful and attentive 83% +/-5% Rights as a tenant are upheld by Bridge Housing 81% +/-3% Services provided by Bridge Housing 81% +/-3% The support provided when you first moved into your home 80% +/-3% Page 15

The second table below lists services with the highest levels of dissatisfaction. The majority of service areas with high levels of dissatisfaction relate to different aspects of the complaints service. Question % Dissatisfied Margin of error The speed with which your complaint was dealt with 38% +/-10% How well you were kept informed about the progress of your complaint 35% +/-10% How your compliant was dealt with 32% +/-10% The information and advice by staff 29% +/-10% The outcome of your complaint 25% +/-10% How easy it was to make your complaint 19% +/-8% The final outcome of your query 19% +/-3% The ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently 16% +/-3% Repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides 14% +/-4% The quality of the repair carried out at your home 12% +/-4% Page 16

Comparison to previous surveys The table below compares the results of the 2015 survey with those achieved in 2013 and it traces the changes in tenant satisfaction across three years for selected indicators. Question 2012 2013 2015 Change (2013-2015) Complaints 51% 39% 49% +10% The speed with which your complaint was dealt with 41% 49% +8% How well kept informed about the progress of your complaint 40% 46% +6% Size of your home 86% 89% +3% The information and advice provided by staff 56% 59% +3% Satisfaction with the out-of-hours emergency repairs service 80% 82% +2% Suitability of your home to your circumstances 90% 91% +1% Safety of your home 86% 87% +1% Tenants are able to influence Bridge Housing s decision making 64% 65% +1% Neighbourhood 87% 86% 86% 0% Tenant engagement 79% 80% 80% 0% Value for money for rent 84% 84% 0% Transport in your area 91% 91% 0% The final outcome of your query 73% 73% 0% Bridge listens to tenants views and acts on them 73% 73% 0% Property condition 84% 85% 84% -1% Communication 82% 85% 84% -1% The outcome of your complaint 46% 45% -1% Services available in your area 90% 89% -1% Support provided when first moved in to home 82% 80% -2% Repairs 71% 77% 75% -2% Rights as tenant are upheld 84% 81% -3% The contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum and left property clean and tidy 84% 81% -3% Bridge Housing's staff helpful or unhelpful? 79% 76% -3% Page 17

Housing services 85% 84% 81% -3% Location of home 92% 89% -3% How easy it was to make a complaint 67% 63% -4% The quality of the repair carried out 78% 74% -4% The ability of staff to deal with query quickly and efficiently 81% 77% -4% My call or email was answered in a timely manner or my message was returned promptly 85% 80% -5% Satisfaction with way Bridge provides information 85% 80% -5% The staff were helpful and attentive (relates to repairs staff) 88% 83% -5% Page 18

Summary of findings Section overview This section provides an overview of the key survey findings in the order in which they appear in the questionnaire. Methodology Summary In the 2015 survey, Bridge Housing has an excellent response rate (41%) This is well above the NRSCH threshold (25%) and also above the Federation s benchmark average (34%). The 2015 response rate sustains the excellent response rate achieved in the 2013/4 survey (40%). The margin of error for this survey is +/-2.9 with a 95% confidence level. This means that Bridge Housing can have a high degree of confidence that the views of respondents reflect the views of all its tenants. As well as the English version, the survey was translated into the five languages most frequently spoken by Bridge Housing s tenants: Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish and Vietnamese in recognition of Bridge Housing s diverse tenant community. The response rates from these communities were very good. Bridge Housing should be congratulated for these efforts to make the customer survey process accessible to its diverse communities. Housing services 81% of respondents said they were satisfied with services provided by Bridge Housing. 24% were unsure or did not understand how their rent is calculated. In total, 76% understand how their rent is calculated. 77% said they thought the charges for water usage are fair, while only around half (55%) said they understand how the water charges are calculated. 81% of respondents said they have had a property inspection in the last 12 months. Only 6% said they have never had a property inspection. Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with their home and neighbourhood. Results were positive: 89% of respondents were satisfied with the location of their home (6% dissatisfied) 84% of respondents were satisfied with the value for money for the rent they pay (7% dissatisfied) 81% were satisfied with the services provided by Bridge Housing (9% dissatisfied) 80% of respondents were satisfied with the support provided when they first moved in (8% dissatisfied) Complaints and appeals 64% of respondents reported that they knew how to make a complaint to Bridge Housing. This still leaves 36% of respondents who were either unsure of or did not know how to make a complaint. A lower proportion Page 19

(43%) said they knew how to appeal a decision made by Bridge Housing, 33% were unsure and 25% said that they did not know. 25% of the respondents (171 people) said they have made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months. Respondents who have made a complaint were asked to rate how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the service they received. While there were large increases in satisfaction with complaints handling since the 2013 survey, results were mixed. 63% of respondents were satisfied with how easy it was to make their complaint (19% dissatisfied) 59% of respondents were satisfied with the information and advice provided by staff (29% dissatisfied) 49% of respondents were satisfied overall with how their compliant was dealt with (32% dissatisfied) 49% of respondents were satisfied with the speed with which their complaint was dealt with (38% dissatisfied) 46% of respondents were satisfied with how well they were kept informed about the progress of their complaint (35% dissatisfied) 45% of respondents were satisfied with the outcome of their complaint (25% dissatisfied) Repairs and maintenance 64% of respondents said they had reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months. The most common method of reporting a repair was report it to the repair team (46%) followed by with their housing manager (22%). Respondents who reported a repair in the last 12 months were asked to rate their satisfaction with various elements of the service. There were some very good results related to several aspects of Bridge Housing s repairs services: 83% were satisfied that the staff were helpful and attentive (7% dissatisfied). 81% were satisfied that the contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum, and left the property clean and tidy (6% dissatisfied). 80% were satisfied that their call was answered in a timely manner or their phone message was returned promptly (10% dissatisfied). 75% were satisfied overall with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides (14% dissatisfied). 74% were satisfied that the quality of the repair carried out (12% dissatisfied). Respondents who have reported a repair were asked about their experience. Results were mixed: 93% of respondents said the contractor was respectful and courteous 84% of respondents said they contractor called to make an appointment Page 20

76% of respondents said the staff advised how long it would take to make the repair 73% of respondents said if the repair was not completed, they were told when it would be dealt with 60% of respondents said the contractor showed their identification card. 19% of respondents (123 people) said they have used Bridge Housing s out-of-hours emergency repairs service. These respondents were asked to rate the service. 82% were satisfied with the out-of-hours emergency repairs service, while 13% were dissatisfied. 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with the condition of their home, 9% were dissatisfied. Neighbourhood Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with elements of their home and local area. Results were very positive: 91% were satisfied with the transport available in their area (4% dissatisfied) 91% were satisfied with the suitability of their home for their circumstances (5% dissatisfied) 89% were satisfied with the services available in their area (3%) dissatisfied) 89% were satisfied with the size of their home (6% were dissatisfied) 87% were satisfied with the safety of their home (7% dissatisfied) Respondents were asked to say to what extent a selection of issues were a problem in their neighbourhood. The top 3 problems were: Car parking Rubbish or litter Noisy neighbours Respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with their neighbourhood. There was a combined satisfaction rating of 86%, 7% combined dissatisfaction and 7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Respondents were asked whether their neighbourhood has improved or declined in the last 3 years. 39% said it had improved, 52% said it had stayed the same and 9% said it had declined. Communication In total, 543 respondents (81%) made contact with Bridge Housing in the preceding 12 months. Respondents who have contacted Bridge Housing in the last 12 months were asked about their experience. The most common reason for contacting Bridge Housing was repairs and maintenance (53%), followed by rent (30%). In terms of method of contact, by phone (70%) was the most common. 63% of respondents said that it was easy to get hold of the right person and 76% said that staff were helpful. Respondents were asked were asked how satisfied they were with how quickly staff were able to deal with their problem and also their satisfaction with the final outcome of their query. Page 21

77% of respondents said that they were satisfied with the ability of staff to deal with their query quickly and efficiently (16% dissatisfied) 73% were satisfied with the final outcome of their enquiry (19% dissatisfied) 80% of respondents said they were satisfied with the way Bridge Housing provides them with information. Respondents were given a list of methods of communication and were asked how useful each is for providing them with information. 92% of respondents said that letters were useful 51% of respondents said that emails were useful 63% of respondents said that SMS were useful 78% of respondents said that newsletters were useful 37% of respondents said that the website was useful All respondents were asked about their overall satisfaction with communication with Bridge Housing. Respondents reported a good level of satisfaction, with a combined satisfaction rating of 84% and 7% combined dissatisfaction. Tenant engagement 80% of respondents were satisfied with the way Bridge Housing involves tenants 73% of respondents were satisfied that Bridge Housing listens to tenants views and acts on them 65% of respondents were satisfied that tenants are able to influence Bridge Housing s decision-making Respondents were given a list of ways to get involved and were asked how useful each were. Telephone calls, magazine/newsletter and personal visit were seen as most useful, while block meetings (44% not useful), residential groups, and workshops were seen as less useful. Respondents were asked which issues or activities they are interested in. Over half (56%) said they were interested in repairs and maintenance. This was followed by activities for older people (34%), social activities (33%) and commenting on housing services (30%). The Tenants Advisory Group (TAG) is a group run by tenants for tenants. TAG works with Bridge Housing to make sure that tenants have a real say in the way Bridge Housing delivers its services. When asked if they would be interested in joining such a group, 19% said that they would be interested in joining, 65% were not interested and 16% were already a member. Respondents were asked why they didn t want to get involved. The most common reasons were language barrier (29%), times/days of meetings (23%) and location of meetings (21%). Respondents were asked which issues or activities they are interested in. Over half (56%) said they were interested in repairs and maintenance. This was followed by activities for older people (34%), social activities (33%) and commenting on housing services (30%). Page 22

Quality of life When asked if their life has improved since living in a Bridge Housing property 77% said it has improved, 16% said it has stayed the same and 7% said it has declined. Tenant priorities Repairs and maintenance was by far the most important priority for tenants, with 70% of respondents selecting it amongst their top three. Secondly, this was followed by value for money for the rent they pay (51%). Thirdly, overall condition of the home (50%). Page 23

Section 1: Demographics Section overview The demographic section serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides information about the backgrounds of the people who responded to the survey. Secondly, it enables cross tabulation of other survey results by each of the variables in this section. Some key cross-tabulations (namely by program and geographic area) are presented in this report. There is also the possibility to conduct further analysis should the need arise in future. Length of tenure Tenants were asked how long they had been a tenant of Bridge Housing. In total, 49% of respondents have been a Bridge Housing tenant for up to 5 years. Almost a third (31%) had been a tenant of Bridge Housing for 11 years or more. DE01. How long have you been a tenant with Bridge Housing? Less than a year 1 to 2 years 12% 11% 3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 11 years 20% 26% 31% Base: All respondents (674) The radar chart below shows that the most satisfied group are tenants who have been with Bridge Housing from 3-5 years. Longstanding tenants (11+) are less satisfied for most of these headline areas. HS07. Value for money for the rent you pay RM07. Repairs and maintenance 100% 50% TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them 0% HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld RM15. Condition of your home CM11. Communication NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to live Page 24 Less than 2 years 3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 11 years

Repairs and maintenance The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour hood Communi cation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them Less than 2 years 42% (55) 83% (131) 86% (147) 84% (146) 83% (147) 81% (148) 72% (143) 3 to 5 years 53% (57) 90% (157) 86% (171) 88% (171) 87% (161) 82% (169) 77% (164) 6 to 10 years 50% (51) 77% (115) 83% (132) 82% (131) 87% (130) 80% (133) 76% (130) More than 11 11+ years 40% (74) 81% (178) 82% (208) 90% (198) 80% (196) 79% (208) 68% (195) Main language 65% said that English is the main language spoken in their household, 35% said it was not the main language spoken at home. The chart below looks at satisfaction by main language spoken in the home. Respondents who said that English was their main language were more likely to be satisfied with value for money for rent, neighbourhood as a place to live and repairs and maintenance HS07. Value for money for the rent you pay RM07. Repairs and maintenance 100% 50% 0% TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld RM15. Condition of your home CM11. Communication NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to live English Non English Page 25

Repairs and maintenanc e The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour hood Communi cation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them English 58% (138) 85% (375) 88% (430) 89% (422) 84% (410) 80% (427) 73% (412) Non English 29% (98) 80% (203) 76% (221) 83% (217) 84% (218) 83% (225) 75% (213) Cultural group A breakdown of ancestry can be seen in the chart below. 36% classified themselves as Australian and 38% classed themselves as having an ancestry different to any of the options that were provided. DE04. Which cultural group do you most identify with? Australian 36% Anglo-Celtic Chinese Vietnamese Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 8% 7% 6% 5% Other 38% Base: All respondents (651) Detailed list of cultural groups Cultural group Count Cultural group Count Australian 236 German 5 Anglo-Celtic 54 Indian 5 Chinese 44 Italian 5 Vietnamese 36 Filipino 4 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 33 Sri Lankan 4 Spanish 28 Bosnian 3 Lebanese 21 Iraqi 3 New Zealander 18 Macedonian 3 Russian 18 South African 3 Greek 15 Assyrian 2 Serbian 12 Croatian 2 Turkish 12 Egyptian 2 Polish 9 Fijian 1 Korean 8 Indonesian 1 Dutch 5 Kurdish 1 Page 26

The radar chart shows that respondents identifying as Chinese and Vietnamese are much less satisfied with the repairs and maintenance service. However, both these groups are much more satisfied than the Bridge Housing average with communications and that their rights are upheld. NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to HS07. Value live for money for the rent you pay CM11. Communication 100% HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld 50% 0% RM15. Condition of your home RM07. Repairs and maintenance TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Anglo-Celtic Australian Chinese Vietnamese Other Repairs and maintenance The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour Hood Communi cation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 55% (13) 88% (26) 88% (33) 84% (31) 84% (32) 84% (32) 73% (33) Anglo-Celtic 67% (18) 88% (42) 91% (54) 89% (53) 81% (48) 80% (54) 68% (53) Australian 60% (65) 84% (205) 86% (233) 88% (230) 84% (225) 80% (228) 73% (222) Chinese 24% (22) 83% (41) 86% (37) 83% (41) 97% (38) 93% (44) 78% (37) Vietnamese 26% (20) 80% (30) 83% (36) 85% (33) 94% (35) 94% (36) 83% (35) Other 41% (88) 81% (218) 80% (242) 84% (235) 81% (233) 77% (242) 70% (226) Page 27

Age Clients were asked their age; 2% of respondents were aged under 30, 51% were aged 30-59 and 47% were aged 60 or over. DE05. How old are you? 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ 2% 9% 18% 24% 20% 17% 10% Base: All respondents (674) Respondents aged under 40 were less likely to be satisfied with most aspects of the service, including the condition of their home, value for money, communications and that tenant rights upheld. NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to HS07. Value live for money for the rent you pay 100% 50% 0% RM15. Condition of your home RM07. Repairs and maintenance CM11. Communication HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them Under 40 40-49 50-59 60-69 Page 28

Repairs and maintenance The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour Hood Communi cation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them 40 and under 44% (29) 72% (69) 75% (77) 84% (75) 77% (74) 71% (76) 74% (76) 40-49 49% (42) 86% (112) 84% (118) 81% (118) 82% (112) 84% (118) 75% (110) 50-59 48% (63) 81% (144) 84% (158) 86% (155) 83% (157) 75% (157) 65% (156) 60+ 44% (100) 87% (269) 86% (304) 90% (297) 87% (292) 85% (307) 76% (287) Gender 59% of respondents were female, 42% were male. DE06. Are you: Male 42% Female 59% Base: All respondents (664) There were only marginal differences in satisfaction when analysed by gender: NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to HS07. Value live for money for the rent you pay 100% 50% RM15. Condition of your home 0% RM07. Repairs and maintenance CM11. Communication HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them Male Female Page 29

Repairs and maintenance The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour Hood Communic Ation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them Male 46% (96) 85% (238) 84% (277) 85% (268) 83% (268) 78% (279) 72% (261) Female 44% (141) 82% (349) 84% (379) 87% (374) 83% (366) 82% (381) 73% (365) Disability 57% of respondents said at least 1 person in their household has a long term illness or disability that lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months. DE07. How many people living in your household have a long term illness or disability that lasted (or is expected to last) at least 12 months? None 1 43% 44% 2 10% 3 1% 4+ 2% Base: All respondents (658) Page 30

Respondents with a person with a long term illness or disability in the household were less satisfied with most main service areas: NH20. Neighbourhood as a place to HS07. Value live for money for the rent you pay 100% 50% 0% RM15. Condition of your home RM07. Repairs and maintenance CM11. Communication HS01. Rights as a tenant are upheld TE02. Listens to tenants views and acts on them Yes No Repairs and maintenance The condition of your home Value for money for rent Neighbour hood Communic Ation Rights as a tenant are upheld Listens to tenant s views and acts on them Yes 44% (127) 82% (330) 83% (364) 84% (361) 81% (355) 78% (369) 72% (356) No 53 (102) 86% (239) 85% (280) 89% (270) 86% (264) 83% (277) 72% (264) Page 31

Section 2: Housing services Section overview Housing services are the core business of every community housing provider. This section contains the key indicator of overall satisfaction with housing services. It also examines various aspects of the housing management service, including tenants rights, rent and value for money. Tenants rights There was a good level of satisfaction that Bridge Housing tenants rights were upheld by Bridge Housing, with 81% satisfied and 10% dissatisfied. HS01. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that your rights as a tenant are upheld by Bridge Housing? Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 37% 44% Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 5% 5% 9% Base: All respondents (676) Rent Around a quarter of respondents (24%) were unsure or did not understand how their rent is calculated. In total, 76% understand how their rent is calculated. HS02. Do you understand how your rent is calculated? Yes 76% No 8% Unsure 16% Base: All respondents (678) Page 32

Water usage and charges Respondents were asked whether Bridge Housing s charges for water usage are fair. Overall 77% said they thought they were fair. Results differ when the data is broken down by whether respondents have a communal water meter or not. Respondents who have a communal water meter were less likely to think that the way Bridge Housing charges for water is fair, with 67% of tenants with a communal water meter saying that the way Bridge Housing charges water is fair. HS03. Do you think the way Bridge Housing charges for water usage is fair? Total Communal water meter No communal water meter 23% 23% 33% 67% 77% 77% Yes No Respondents were then asked whether they understand the way their water charges are calculated. Overall, 55% said they understand. Again, results differ when broken by whether or not respondents have a communal water meter or not. HS04. Do you understand the way your water charges are calculated? Total 55% 45% Communal water meter 38% 62% No communal water meter 54% 46% Yes No Page 33

Property inspection 81% of respondents said they have had a property inspection in the last 12 months. Only 6% said they have never had a property inspection. HS05. When was the last time you had a property inspection? Less than 6 months ago 49% Less than 12 months ago 32% Less than 2 years ago Less than 5 years ago 3% 11% I have never had one 6% Base: All respondents (678) Satisfaction with home and services Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their home and services provided by Bridge Housing. HS06~HS09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? HS08. The location of your home (639) 67 22 5 3 3 HS07. Value for money for the rent you pay (675) 52 32 9 6 2 HS06. The support provided when you first moved into your home? (647) 55 26 12 4 3 HS09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? (648) 45 36 9 6 4 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Results were positive: 89% of respondents were satisfied with the location of their home (6% dissatisfied) Page 34

84% of respondents were satisfied with the value for money for the rent they pay (7% dissatisfied) 81% were satisfied with the services provided by Bridge Housing (9% dissatisfied) 80% of respondents were satisfied with the support provided when they first moved in (8% dissatisfied) Overall satisfaction with housing services Overall, respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with Bridge Housing s housing services. There was a combined satisfaction rating of 81% and 10% combined dissatisfaction. This level of satisfaction above the NRSCH threshold (75%) but below the Federation benchmark (86%). Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Result compared to the Federation benchmark As noted above, overall satisfaction with Bridge Housing s services has declined - overall satisfaction fell from 84% in 2013 to 81% in 2015. Page 35

Section 4: Complaints and appeals Section overview Community housing tenants have the right to appeal certain decisions made by community housing landlords. In order to ensure that tenants rights are upheld, and that procedural fairness and natural justice is maintained, it is essential that the appeal process is clear, fair, effective and well publicised. It is also important that a tenant can complain effectively if they feel that an aspect of the service is not operating properly. Complaints play an important role in highlighting problems in service delivery if a community housing organisation does not know about problems in the service delivery it can never address the issue to ensure that the service is working well. The National Community Housing Standards recommend best practice standards relating to both complaints and appeals. Making a complaint 64% of respondents reported that they knew how to make a complaint to Bridge Housing. This still leaves 36% of respondents who were either unsure of or did not know how to make a complaint. A lower proportion (43%) said they knew how to appeal a decision made by Bridge Housing, 33% were unsure and 25% said that they did not know. 25% of respondents (171 people) said they have made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months. Respondents who have made a complaint were asked to rate how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the service they received. CA04~CA09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? CA04. How easy it was to make your complaint (86) CA05. The information and advice provided by staff (82) CA09. How your complaint was dealt with (84) CA07. The speed with which your complaint was dealt with (82) CA06. How well you were kept informed about the progress of your complaint (84) CA08. The outcome of your complaint (77) 33 30 19 14 5 37 22 12 22 7 32 17 19 14 18 29 20 13 15 23 27 19 19 19 15 31 14 30 8 17 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ase: All respondents who have made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months Page 36

Results were mixed. 63% of respondents were satisfied with how easy it was to make their complaint (19% dissatisfied) 59% of respondents were satisfied with the information and advice provided by staff (29% dissatisfied) 49% of respondents were satisfied overall with how their compliant was dealt with (32% dissatisfied) 49% of respondents were satisfied with the speed with which their complaint was dealt with (38% dissatisfied) 46% of respondents were satisfied with how well they were kept informed about the progress of their complaint (35% dissatisfied) 45% of respondents were satisfied with the outcome of their complaint (25% dissatisfied) However, the headline for this section of the report is the significant increase in satisfaction with complaints handling between the 2013/4 survey and this current survey, with overall satisfaction rising 10% from 39% to 49%. This result is now very close to the Federation s benchmarking club average for this indicator (51%). It is also interesting to note that tenants who had made a complaint were more satisfied by those elements of the complaints process under Bridge Housing s control (ease of complaint, information and advice provided) and least satisfied by the outcome of the complaint which is less controllable by the provider. Page 37

Section 5: Repairs and maintenance Section overview Community housing tenants have a right to live in well-maintained properties. International research suggests that repairs and maintenance is the single most important driver of overall tenant satisfaction 5. Repairs reported 64% of respondents to this question (256 people) said they have reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months. The most common method of reporting a repair was report it to the repair team (46%) followed by with their housing manager (22%). RM02. How did you request your repair? With repair team 46% With your housing manager 22% In person Online Via email 6% 5% 9% Other 12% Base: All respondents who have reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (241) Satisfaction with repairs service Respondents who reported a repair in the last 12 months were asked to rate their satisfaction with various elements of the service. There were some very good results with several aspects of Bridge Housing s repairs services: 83% were satisfied that the staff were helpful and attentive (7% dissatisfied). 81% were satisfied that the contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum, and left the property clean and tidy (6% dissatisfied). 80% were satisfied that their call was answered in a timely manner or their phone message was returned promptly (10% dissatisfied). 75% were satisfied overall with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides (14% dissatisfied). 74% were satisfied with the quality of the repair carried out (12% dissatisfied). 5 Hood and Smedley (2009) How to develop and monitor local performance measures, House Mark Page 38

RM03~RM07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? RM04. The staff were helpful and attentive (244) 52 32 10 42 RM05. The contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum, and left my property clean and tidy (236) 49 31 14 32 RM03. My call or email was answered in a timely manner or my message was returned promptly (241) 47 34 10 6 3 RM07. Repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides (242) 43 32 12 7 7 RM06. The quality of the repair carried out at your home (237) 46 28 14 7 5 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents who have reported a repair to Bridge in the last 12 months Overall satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service As noted above, respondents who reported a repair in the last 12 months reported a good overall level of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service. There was a combined satisfaction rating of 75%, 14% combined dissatisfaction and 12% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, there was a small decline in satisfaction for this indicator, from 77% in 2013/4 to 75% in 2015. It should be noted that the 2012 result for this question was 71%. Bridge Housing equalled the NRSCH threshold for this indicator of 75% and was just below the Federation s benchmark score of 78%: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides? Result compared to the Federation benchmark Page 39

Experience of the repairs service Respondents who have reported a repair were asked about their experience. RM08~RM12. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? RM10. The contractor was respectful and courteous towards me and my property (239) 93 7 RM09. The contractor called me to make an appointment (241) 84 16 RM08. Staff advised me how long it would take to make the repair (241) 76 24 RM12. If the repair was not completed, I was told why and when it would be dealt with (207) 73 27 RM11. The contractor showed me his identification card (232) 60 40 Yes No Base: All respondents who have reported a repair to Bridge in the last 12 months Results were mixed: 93% of respondents said the contractor was respectful and courteous 84% of respondents said they contractor called to make an appointment 76% of respondents said the staff advised how long it would take to make the repair 73% of respondents said if the repair was not completed, they were told when it would be dealt with 60% of respondents said the contractor showed their identification card. Page 40

Out-of-hours emergency repairs service 19% of respondents (123 people) said they have used Bridge Housing s out-of-hours emergency repairs service. Respondents who have used Bridge Housing s out-of-hours emergency repairs service were asked to rate the service. 82% were satisfied with the out-of-hours emergency repairs service, while 13% were dissatisfied. RM14. Have you used Bridge Housing s out-of-hours emergency repairs service? Very satisfied 55% Fairly satisfied 27% Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 7% 6% Neither 5% Base: All respondents (121) Condition of home 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with the condition of their home, 9% were dissatisfied. RM15. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the condition of your home? Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 43% 41% Neither Fairly dissatisfied 8% 6% Very dissatisfied 3% Base: All respondents (598) Page 41

Section 6: Neighbourhood Section overview This section looks at satisfaction with the home and local area. Satisfaction with home and local area Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with elements of their home and local area. NH01~NH05. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? NH04. Transport available in your area (667) 67 24 5 22 NH01. Suitability of your home to your circumstances (665) 61 30 5 32 NH03. Services available in your area (e.g. schools, doctors) (661) 66 24 7 21 NH05. Size of your home (662) 60 28 6 42 NH02. Safety of your home (660) 56 31 5 4 4 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied All the results to these questions were positive: 91% were satisfied with the transport available in their area (4% dissatisfied) 91% were satisfied with the suitability of their home for their circumstances (5% dissatisfied) 89% were satisfied with the services available in their area (3%) dissatisfied) 89% were satisfied with the size of their home (6% were dissatisfied) 87% were satisfied with the safety of their home (7% dissatisfied) Page 42

Neighbourhood problems Respondents were asked to what extent each issue was a problem in their neighbourhood. NH06~NH18. To what extent are any of the following a problem in your neighbourhood? NH06. Car parking (647) 22 20 58 NH07. Rubbish or litter (652) 14 28 58 NH08. Noisy neighbours (653) 14 27 58 NH13. Drunk or rowdy behaviour (651) 8 17 75 NH09. Dog fouling/dog mess (648) 6 13 80 NH11. Disruptive children/teenagers (645) 5 14 81 NH10. Other problems with pets and animals (648) 6 12 82 NH16. Drug use or dealing (645) 6 11 83 NH18. Other crimes (619) 4 13 83 NH14.Vandalism and graffiti (648) 3 11 85 NH12. Racial or other harassment (648) 4 10 86 NH15. People damaging your property (647) 4 9 88 NH17. Abandoned or burnt vehicles (647) 2 7 90 Base: All respondents The top 3 problems were: Major problem Minor problem Not a problem at all Car parking (42% said this was a major or minor problem) Rubbish or litter (42% said this was a major or minor problem) Noisy neighbours (25% said this was a major or minor problem) Respondents were asked whether their neighbourhood has improved or declined in the last 3 years. 39% said it had improved, 52% said it had stayed the same and 9% said it had declined. NH19. In the last three years, would you say your neighbourhood has improved or declined? Greatly improved Slightly improved 17% 22% Stayed the same 52% Slightly declined Greatly declined 6% 3% Base: All respondents (627) Page 43

Looking at this question by region, results are very similar, with 38% in the West region saying that their neighbourhood had improved and 40% in the East saying their areas had improved. NH19. In the last three years, would you say your neighbourhood has improved or declined? by Region 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 3 6 51 24 2 7 54 19 10% 0% 15 East (321) West (290) 19 Greatly improved Slightly improved Stayed the same Slightly declined Greatly declined Base: All respondents Overall satisfaction with neighbourhood Respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with their neighbourhood. There was a combined satisfaction rating of 86%, 7% combined dissatisfaction and 7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. NH20. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? Very satisfied 49% Fairly satisfied 37% Neither Fairly dissatisfied 7% 4% Very dissatisfied 3% Base: All respondents (664) Page 44

Section 7: Communication Section overview This section of the survey asked tenants about their experience of communicating with Bridge Housing. Tenants were also asked about their awareness of Bridge Housing s website. Contact with Bridge Housing In total, 543 respondents (81%) made contact with Bridge Housing in the preceding 12 months. Respondents who have contacted Bridge Housing in the last 12 months were asked about their experience. The most common reason for contacting Bridge Housing was repairs and maintenance (53%), followed by rent (30%). In terms of method of contact, by phone (70%) was the most common. CM02. What was the reason that you contacted Bridge Housing? Repairs and maintenance Rent Communal area issues 5% Neighbourhood issues 3% Tenancy transfer 2% Other 7% 30% 53% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (496) CM03. How did you last contact Bridge Housing? By phone In person By email Home visit 3% By letter 2% 15% 11% 70% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (522) 63% of respondents said that it was easy to get hold of the right person and 76% said that staff were helpful. 10% said staff were unhelpful and 15% said staff were neither helpful nor unhelpful. CM04. How easy or difficult was it to get hold of the right person? CM08. Did you find Bridge Housing's staff helpful or unhelpful? Easy 63% Helpful 76% Difficult 21% Neither helpful nor unhelpful 15% Neither 16% Unhelpful 10% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (520) Base: All respondents who have made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (519) Page 45

Respondents were asked were asked how satisfied they were with how quickly staff were able to deal with their problem and also their satisfaction with the final outcome of their query. CM06~CM07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? CM06. The ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently (527) 50 27 8 9 7 CM07. The final outcome of your query (497) 45 28 8 8 11 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ase: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months 77% of respondents said that they were satisfied with the ability of staff to deal with their query quickly and efficiently (16% dissatisfied). This indicator declined 4% from 81% in the 2013 survey. 73% were satisfied with the final outcome of their enquiry (19% dissatisfied) Communication with Bridge Housing 80% of respondents said they were satisfied with the way Bridge Housing provides them with information. CM09. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge Housing provides you with information? Very satisfied 48% Fairly satisfied 33% Neither Fairly dissatisfied 6% 10% Very dissatisfied 4% Base: All respondents (523) Page 46

Respondents were given a list of methods of communication and were asked how useful each are for providing them with information. CM10. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? Newsletter (534) 51 26 12 3 7 SMS (482) 46 18 17 4 16 Emails (460) 34 17 22 7 21 Website (435) 20 17 30 10 23 Base: All respondents Very useful Fairly useful Neither Not very useful Not useful at all 92% of respondents said that letters were useful 51% of respondents said that emails were useful 63% of respondents said that SMS were useful 78% of respondents said that Newsletters were useful 37% of respondents said that the website was useful Overall satisfaction with communication All respondents were asked about their overall satisfaction with communication with Bridge Housing. Respondents reported a very good overall level of satisfaction, with a combined satisfaction rating of 84% and 7% combined dissatisfaction. CM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with communication with Bridge Housing? Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 39% 45% Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 4% 3% 9% Base: All respondents (651) Page 47

Section 8: Tenant engagement Section overview Questions in the tenant engagement section are designed to measure tenants satisfaction with the degree of involvement they have with Bridge Housing and its services. Satisfaction with different levels of tenant engagement Respondents were asked specific questions about satisfaction with tenant engagement. These questions ask for respondents satisfaction with different levels of engagement, starting from involving tenants through to higher levels of involvement (whether Bridge Housing listens to tenants views and acts on them) and finally whether tenants feel satisfied or dissatisfied that they can have the highest level of involvement being able to influence Bridge Housing s decision making. When using the ladder of participation concept it is important to realise that different rungs of the ladder are not necessarily superior and each have their own usages in terms of tenant engagement. Respondents were more satisfied with the lower level of engagement. For example there was a very good combined satisfaction rating of 80% for how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge Housing involves Tenants. Moving to a higher level of engagement, there was a good combined satisfaction rating of 73% for how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that Bridge Housing listens to tenants views and acts on them. Respondents were less satisfied with the higher level of engagement. For example there was a combined satisfaction rating of 65% for the how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that tenants are able to influence Bridge Housing s decision-making. TE01~TE03. In relation to tenant engagement, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following: TE01. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge Housing involves tenants? (657) 45 35 15 32 TE02. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that Bridge Housing listens to tenants views and acts on them? (646) 38 35 18 5 4 TE03. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that tenants are able to influence Bridge Housing s decision-making? (639) 32 33 25 5 5 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 48

Tenant involvement Respondents were given a list of ways to get involved and were asked how useful each were. TE04. In relation to tenant engagement, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following: Telephone call (546) Magazine/Newsletter (522) Personal visit (543) By SMS (text message) (494) Tenant Advisory Group (491) All of the above (278) Bridge Housing Meetings (510) By email (461) Block meetings (462) Residental groups (470) Workshops (467) 46 39 14 40 44 17 38 40 22 37 35 28 26 45 29 25 46 29 26 43 31 29 32 39 19 37 44 17 38 45 18 37 45 Very useful Useful Not useful Base: All respondents Telephone calls, magazine/newsletters and personal visits were seen as most useful, while block meetings (44% not useful), residential groups, workshops were seen as less useful. Issue and activities of interest Respondents were asked which issues or activities they are interested in. Over half (56%) said they were interested in repairs and maintenance. This was followed by activities for older people (34%), social activities (33%) and commenting on housing services (30%). TE05. Which issues or activities are you interested in? Repairs and maintenance 56% Activities for older people 34% Social activities 33% Commenting on housing services 30% Helping to say what Bridge Housing should do in the future 25% Training opportunities 24% Reducing crime 24% Employment opportunities 21% Anti-social behaviour and nuisance 21% Helping to develop or change policy 17% Activities for children and young people 17% Other 7% Base: All respondents (560) Page 49

The Tenants Advisory Group The Tenants Advisory Group (TAG) is a group run by tenants for tenants. TAG works with Bridge Housing to make sure that tenants have a real say in the way Bridge Housing delivers its services. When asked if they would be interested in joining such a group, 19% said that they would be interested in joining, 65% were not interested and 16% were already a member. Reasons for non involvement Respondents were asked why they didn t want to get involved. The most common reason was a language barrier (29%), times/days of meetings (23%) and location of meetings (21%). TE07. What is the reason you do not want to get involved? Language barrier Times/day of meetings Location of the meetings Would prefer some other way of getting involved Transport costs Lack of child care Outcomes of the meetings Content of the meetings Format of the meetings 29% 23% 21% 19% 10% 6% 5% 3% 3% Other 33% Base: All respondents who were not already a member of the TAG (431) Page 50

Section 9: Quality of life Section overview This section examines to what extent respondents feel their lives have changed since moving into a Bridge Housing property. This question was asked for the first time in the 2015 survey and it can provide a good baseline to measure improvements in this area in future tenant surveys. Quality of Life findings When asked if their life has improved since living in a Bridge Housing property 77% said it has improved, 16% said it has stayed the same and 7% said it has declined. QL01. How much, if at all, has your life improved since living in a Bridge Housing property? Greatly improved 54% Slightly improved Stayed the same 16% 22% Slightly declined Greatly declined 4% 3% Base: All respondents (665) When this question is examined by program, there is a statistically significant difference in the results, with tenants living in leasehold properties (84%) statistically more likely to say their life had improved compared to tenants in capital properties (72%). QL01. How much, if at all, has your life improved since living in a Bridge Housing property? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 4 5 19 24 5 2 12 28 2 12 18 50% 40% 30% 20% 48 53 65 10% 0% Capital (393) Fee for Service (43) Leasehold (211) Greatly improved Slightly improved Stayed the same Slightly declined Greatly declined Base: All respondents Page 51

Section 10: Tenant priorities and gap analysis Section overview This section examines the level of importance that tenants attach to different aspects of Bridge Housing services and compares this with their levels of dissatisfaction for each of these services. This identifies service gaps and this information can be used by Bridge Housing to target future service improvements. Results overview The gap analysis indicates that the most important areas of service to tenants that have the largest levels of combined dissatisfaction are repairs and maintenance, followed by a cluster of two service issues: value for money and overall condition of home. Tenant priorities From the following seven service areas tenants were asked to indicate the three most important priorities to them: Repairs and maintenance. Overall condition of your home. Your neighbourhood as a place to live. Value for money for the rent you pay. Communications with Bridge Housing. Your rights as a tenant upheld by Bridge Housing. Bridge Housing listening to tenants' views and acting on them. Please note that the complaints and appeals service is not included in this list. This is because not all tenants would have used this service. This means that they might not be able to comment on the importance of this service, nor would they be able to reflect on their experience of using this service. The chart over the page details the full results. In summary, the analysis revealed the following top three priorities: Repairs and maintenance was by far the most important priority for tenants, with 70% of respondents selecting it amongst their top three. Secondly, this was followed by value for money for the rent they pay (51%). Thirdly, overall condition of the home (50%). Page 52

YP01. From the following list, please choose the three most important areas of service to you. Repairs and maintenance Value for money for the rent you pay Overall condition of your home Your neighbourhood as a place to live Bridge Housing listening to tenants' views and acting on them Communications with Bridge Housing 70% 51% 50% 42% 30% 28% Base: All respondents (665) Your rights as a tenant upheld by Bridge Housing 25% Tenants priorities were then mapped against information about their levels of dissatisfaction. This allows Bridge Housing to identify service areas that are considered to be both important and where performance is seen by tenants as comparatively less satisfactory and therefore a service gap. This allows Bridge Housing to plan strategically and to prioritise these areas if necessary. This map supplied below shows the proportion of tenants who were dissatisfied with each area of service, against a count of importance (the cumulative frequency that service was cited as being in the top three priorities for tenants). This map demonstrates that: Repairs and maintenance is the area of service seen as most important but with the second largest combined dissatisfaction rating. Next was value for money for the rent they pay and overall condition of home. Page 53

Importance / Performance 20 16 % Negative 12 8 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % Important Repairs and maintenance Listening to tenants' views Overall condition of your home Communication Value for money for the rent you pay Your rights as a tenant upheld Your neighbourhood as a place to live Base: All respondents Page 54

Analysis by region Section overview This section analyses satisfaction with service delivery by region. Analysing differences in satisfaction between region and program can provide useful insights in to how tenants in different regions perceive certain aspects of service delivery by Bridge Housing. Findings Data has been tested for statistical significance using the z-test at the 95% confidence interval. Undertaking the z-test confirms that the occurrence of a particular effect (in this case, differences in tenant satisfaction between regions) did not occur by chance alone. In other words, if a result is statistically significant, we can be 95% sure that this has not happened by chance. However, after conducting the z-test for differences in seven headline service areas it was discovered that there were no significant differences when looking at region: % Satisfied Total East West Housing services 81% (685) 83% (341) 80% (327) Repairs 75% (242) 77% (121) 73% (113) Property condition 84% (598) 81% (291) 85% (294) Complaints 49% (84) 57% (47) 38% (32) Neighbourhood 86% (664) 88% (331) 84% (316) Communication 84% (651) 83% (327) 85% (307) Tenant engagement 80% (657) 81% (330) 79% (311) Page 55

Analysis by program Section overview This section analyses satisfaction with service delivery by program. Programs identified are capital, leasehold properties and fee for service. Findings Data has been tested for statistical significance using the z-test at the 95% confidence interval and the results are contained in the table below. Similar to the previous analysis by region findings, there were no statistically significant differences when looking at headline service areas by programs. % Satisfied Total Capital Fee for Services Leasehold Housing services 81% (685) 80% (410) 83% (42) 84% (216) Repairs 75% (242) 76% (141) 75% (16) 74% (77) Property condition 84% (598) 84% (363) 85% (39) 81% (183) Complaints 49% (84) 50% (50) 50% (6) 48% (23) Neighbourhood 86% (664) 84% (401) 90% (39) 90% (207) Communication 84% (651) 83% (389) 83% (40) 86% (205) Tenant engagement 80% (657) 77% (391) 88% (40) 83% (210) However, there were a small number of statistically significant differences between programs for the following questions: Do you understand the way your water charges are calculated? Capital tenants had a statistically significant better understanding of how water charges are calculated (59%) than tenants living in leasehold properties. (47%) The location of your home. Tenants living in the East were statistically more satisfied (94%) than tenants living in the West. (83%) Neighbourhood as a place to live. Leasehold tenants were statistically more satisfied (90%) than tenants living in capital properties. (84%) The ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently. Capital tenants were statistically more satisfied (79%) than tenants living in leasehold properties. (70%) As noted above there was a statistically significant difference with how much, if at all, has your life improved since living in a Bridge Housing property with leasehold tenants statistically more likely to say their life had improved (84%) compared to tenants living in capital properties (72%). Page 56

Comments Section overview This section looks at the comments made by respondents. Comments All comments are supplied separately in the Excel Comments Toolkit. This toolkit allows Bridge Housing to filter and analyse in more depth all the comments received. All comments were coded to one primary service area and by type of comment (be it negative, neutral or positive). In total, 213 comments were made by respondents. The majority of comments were positive (52%), or 110 comments in total, followed by 28% or 60 neutral comments and 20% or 43 negative comments. All comments by service area and by negative, neutral or positive Negative (count & %) Neutral (count & %) Positive (count & %) Grand Total Housing services-customer service 1 50% 1 50% 2 Housing services - inspections 1 17% 4 66% 1 17% 6 Housing services rent 2 25% 5 63% 1 12% 8 Housing services staff 4 18% 4 18% 14 64% 22 Housing services transfers 1 20% 4 80% 5 Neighbourhood issues - disputes 1 50% 1 50% 2 Neighbourhood antisoc.behaviour 2 67% 1 33% 3 Neighbourhood area/amenities 2 67% 1 33% 3 Neighbourhood bins/recycling 2 50% 2 50% 4 Repairs - modifications 1 100% 1 Repairs condition of property 5 63% 2 25% 1 12% 8 Repairs contact/communication 4 50% 4 50% 8 Repairs - inspections 1 50% 1 50% 2 Repairs contractors 2 100% 2 Repairs quality of repairs 1 50% 1 50% 2 Repairs quality of home 2 29% 3 43% 2 28% 7 Repairs - time 6 50% 6 50% 12 Tenant engagement 2 66% 1 33% 3 Bridge generally 1 2% 1 2% 44 96% 46 Bridge services 2 5% 38 95% 40 Bridge - communication 8 38% 8 38% 5 4% 21 Other 1 16% 5 84% 6 Grand total (count) 43 60 110 213 Grand total (percentage) 20% 28% 52% 100% Page 57

Negative comments were clustered around repairs, condition of property and communication issues. Positive comments were clustered around Bridge Housing in general and Bridge Housing s services and Bridge Housing services staff. The word cloud below illustrates the frequency of certain words that appeared in all the comments received. The more prominent a word the more frequently it was mentioned. A stop word list has been used to filter out words and numbers that are irrelevant to the analysis 6. Reflecting the survey s positive results words like thank, happy and helpful appear. Reflecting some of the more negative themes words like problems, repairs and issues appear however, the relatively small size of these words indicate that these words occur less frequently than the more positive words. The stop word list is: 1 10 11 12 14 15 2 2009 25 26 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a about abridged after again all also although am an and any are arm as at be been bridge but by can ch comment could do does doing don't e.g eg etc even for four from get getting go going had has have he her here his housing housing's i i'd i'm i've i.e if in including into is isn't it it's its lodge lot make me much my name no north not of on one only or our plus re say she so some still take tenant tenants than that the their them then there these they things this to unit up us use very walls was way we were what when where which who why will with withheld would you your yp01 z Page 58

YP02. Word cloud. Do you have any comments about Bridge Housing s services? Page 59