Bridge Housing Ltd. 2014 Tenant Satisfaction Survey Report prepared by NSW Federation of Housing Associations April 2014
This report was prepared by: Maja Frölich 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 Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 2
Contents Contents... 3 Executive summary... 4 Recommendations... 10 Introduction... 13 Methodology... 13 Statistical reliability... 17 Section 1: Demographics... 18 Section 2: Housing services... 24 Section 3: Complaints and appeals... 33 Section 4: Repairs and maintenance... 42 Section 5: Neighbourhood... 54 Section 6: Communication... 63 Section 7: Tenant engagement... 73 Section 8: Tenants priorities... 85 Section 9: Comments... 88 Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 3
Executive summary Section overview This section gives an overview of the survey and its headline results. Background Bridge Housing Ltd. (Bridge) commissioned the NSW Federation of Housing Associations to conduct their 2014 tenant satisfaction survey. 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. This is the second tenant satisfaction survey the Federation has conducted for Bridge. The Federation also conducted Bridge s 2012 survey. The four aims of the 2014 survey are to: 1. Establish tenant satisfaction with services in line with the National Regulatory System for Community Housing. 2. Provide a comparison with the overall results achieved in the 2012 survey. 3. Benchmark performance levels against the Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group. 4. Inform future service delivery improvements. How the survey was completed The 2014 Bridge tenant satisfaction survey was distributed as a hard copy via mail to all 1,603 Bridge households with an enclosed covering letter and prepaid response envelope. Fieldwork (when tenants are asked to complete the survey) was conducted week commencing 16 th January 2014 and closed week ending 28 th February 2014. The Federation received a total of 635 valid 1 returned questionnaires, representing an overall valid response rate of 40%. This is an excellent response rate. For this survey the overall confidence interval is +/- 3.02 with a 95% confidence level 2. This is a good level of certainty and means that when analysing the results using a base of all respondents Bridge can have a high degree of confidence that the views of respondents reflect the views of all its tenants. About the respondents In total, 29% of respondents have been a Bridge tenant for three to five years. A further 29% of respondents had been a Bridge tenant for more than eleven years. The majority of respondents 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) 2 Please see the statistical reliability section of this report for a further information Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 4
(71%) spoke English at home. Just under a half of respondents (49%) identified themselves as Australian (40%) or Anglo-Celtic (9%). The two largest groupings for age of respondents were 35-64 which accounted for 36% and 65+ which also accounted for 36% of respondents. In total 59% of respondents were female, and 42% male. Finally, 65% of respondents that answered this question reported having one household member with an illness or disability that had lasted, or was expected to last, at least 12 months. Headline results This section gives the headline results from the 2014 survey. Overall combined satisfaction 3 with key service areas and comparison with 2012 results, NRSCH thresholds and Federation benchmarks Overall Satisfaction Satisfaction 2012 Satisfaction 2013 NRSCH threshold Federation benchmark Margin of error 2014 Change 2012 to 2014 Housing services 85% 84% 75% OK 84% (=) -/+3% Complaints 51% 39% 52% (Below) -/+9% Repairs 71% 77% 75% OK 77% (=) -/+4% Property condition 84% 85% 75% OK 84% (Above) -/+3% Neighbourhood 87% 86% 85% (Above) -/+3% Communication 82% 85% 83% (Above) -/+3% Tenant engagement 79% 80% 77% (Above) -/+3% 3 The combined satisfaction rate is calculated by adding the percentages of respondents in the satisfied and very satisfied categories Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 5
Overall the results of the 2014 tenant satisfaction survey are very good. The headline for this year s satisfaction survey results is the significant improvement made in repairs and maintenance compared to last years results. Four out of the seven service areas (where comparison data is available) improved their results compared to 2012. Two of the three principal NRSCH tenant satisfaction indicators improved overall satisfaction with property condition improved 1%, and there were good improvements seen in tenants satisfaction with repairs (+6%). The best performing service areas were communication and neighbourhood which had a combined satisfaction rating of 85%and 86% respectively. There were also notable improvements in respondents satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with inquires efficiently (+19%) and respondents satisfaction with the final outcome of their inquiry (+11%). Neighbourhood in particular had very good levels of tenant satisfaction. Quality of home and housing services had very good levels of satisfaction. Also, within repairs and maintenance there were individual aspects that also recorded very good levels of satisfaction. Unsurprisingly, and in common with all other surveys undertaken by the Federation, the lowest levels of satisfaction across the entire tenant satisfaction survey related to complaints handling (39%). This area of Bridge s service also experienced the biggest drop in satisfaction from 51% in 2012 to 39% in 2014. Also, in common with other surveys undertaken by the Federation, the second worst performing service area (whilst still above the NRSCH benchmark) was repairs and maintenance (77%). All three thresholds for the NRSCH were reached. Housing services (84%), property condition (85%) were both well above the 75% NRSCH threshold. Repairs satisfaction at 77% was just above the 75% NRSCH threshold. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 6
To give an indication of how well Bridge performed their satisfaction levels for housing services and repairs and maintenance were compared to the Federation s benchmark group 4. In both of these key indicators Bridge was right on the Federation s benchmark. It should be noted that the NRSCH threshold for both these indicators is 75%. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Result compared to the Federation benchmark 84% Again, compared to the Federation s benchmark data set (77%) Bridge (77%) was right on the average for repairs and maintenance, even with good improvements seen in this area. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides? Result compared to the Federation benchmark 77% When Bridge s results are compared to the Federation s benchmarking data, Bridge was above the peer group average in four areas (Property condition, Neighbourhood, Communication, and Tenant Engagement), exactly on benchmark in two (Repairs, Housing Services) and below in only one area (Complaints). Unsurprisingly, the lowest levels of satisfaction across the entire tenant satisfaction survey related to complaints handling. Unlike other areas of Bridge s service, tenants reported large levels of dissatisfaction with complaints, with 43% of tenants very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with Bridge s complaints handling. This area of Bridge s service experienced a significant drop in satisfaction from 51% in 2012 to 39% in 2013. This suggests that this area should be a focus for additional work in the year ahead. 4 For further information about the Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group, see the methodology section below. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 7
In conclusion, despite the slight decreases in satisfaction in some areas of services, the levels of overall combined satisfaction achieved by Bridge across the board (excluding complaints) are very good. The improvement in repairs and maintenance satisfaction is an excellent result. Gap analysis Gap analysis provides valuable insight by mapping tenants priorities against levels of dissatisfaction. Gap analysis allows providers to focus their continuous improvement work on those areas that tenants rate as most important, and where there are significant levels of dissatisfaction. This analysis is summarised in the following chart and reveals that: Repairs and maintenance is the area of service seen as most important but with the largest combined dissatisfaction rating. Next were value for money and the overall condition of home these had similar importance and dissatisfaction levels. Neighbourhood is fourth for importance to tenants with dissatisfaction levels similar to dissatisfaction level with value for money. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 8
% Negative Importance / Performance 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % Important Repairs and maintenance Communications Your neighbourhood Listening to tenants Overall condition of your home Your rights as a tenant Value for money for rent Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 9
Recommendations Section overview Based on a more detailed analysis of the survey the following recommendations are made: Methodology 1. In the 2014 survey, Bridge had an excellent response rate (40%) which is well above the NRSCH threshold (25%). This was a result of several strategies, including survey translations. Bridge demonstrated its commitment to tenants by translating the survey into the three community languages most frequently spoken by tenants (Spanish, Arabic and Vietnamese). This has led to excellent response rates from these groups. Bridge also sent out an SMS message to announce the start of the survey and a reminder SMS to non-respondents mid-way through the fieldwork period. Bridge should be congratulated for these efforts and should continue this good practice in the future surveys. Bridge should also communicate these excellent results among its peers to encourage adoption of this practice in the sector. 2. When undertaking future customer satisfaction surveys Bridge should consider re-using reminder SMS and possibly reminder mailings to maintain or increase response rates. Housing services 1. There were very good levels of combined satisfaction for the different aspects of housing services, including overall satisfaction (84%). Despite these results there are areas that Bridge could improve upon. For example a sizable minority of respondents (21%) were unsure or did not understand how their rent is calculated (HS02). This issue is a common issue in the sector and rent calculations can be complicated. However, it is recommended that Bridge considers if there are additional methods (e.g. workshops, newsletters, information on their website or summary documents) it could produce to assist more tenants to understand how their rent is calculated. The value for money of rents also appeared in the comments and the gap analysis (see the section on tenant priorities). Explaining why rents are set at a certain level may help to counter this. Again, this is an issue that the Federation has noticed occurs in many customer satisfaction surveys conducted in the community housing sector. Complaints and appeals 1. Complaints and appeals had the lowest levels of satisfaction in the tenant satisfaction survey and also had a significant decline in satisfaction compared to 2012. For example the combined satisfaction rating for overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with (CA09) was 39% - compared to 51% in 2012. Therefore it is recommended that Bridge undertakes further internal research to understand the reasons for this. One of the possible reasons for this low level of satisfaction is the respondents low level of satisfaction with the outcome of their complaint 46% (CA08). 2. There is a significant minority of respondents that were not aware of how to complain to Bridge (31%) and in particular how to appeal a decision made by Bridge (53%). Therefore it is recommended that Bridge undertakes initiatives to increase tenants awareness of these areas. This might include articles in the tenant newsletter, information on Bridge s website and face to face meetings with tenants. It is also recommended that staff have a refresher on complaints and appeals processes. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 10
Repairs and maintenance 1. Repairs and maintenance is the single most important driver of overall tenant satisfaction so it is important to get this service right. It is acknowledged that Bridge have made improvements in this area, with a 6% increase in satisfaction between 2013 and 2014. Satisfaction (77%) is slightly above the NRSCH threshold of 75% and right on the Federation s benchmarking group average (77%). It is also noticeable that many aspects of this service have improved since 2012. Satisfaction with the condition of homes was high at 85%. 2. Repairs and maintenance was the issue with the biggest gap when tenant priorities were mapped against combined dissatisfaction (see the section on tenant priorities), with 73% of tenants saying that repairs and maintenance was one of their top three priorities. As tenants made many valuable comments about repairs and maintenance issues it is recommended that Bridge study these in detail at a program and regional level. In particular it is recommended that Bridge examine comments focused on the length of time taken to complete a repair, condition of property and contact with staff. 3. The lowest levels of combined satisfaction (62%) were for advice from Bridge in the case when a repair was not completed I was told why and when it would be dealt with ((RM10). There was also a combined satisfaction rating of 74% for staff advised me how long it would take to make the repair (RM05). It is recommended that Bridge investigates if it can tighten up on these matters. Neighbourhood 1. Although neighbourhood had excellent levels of tenant satisfaction, tenants did mention issues relating to anti-social behaviour and tenant disputes in their comments. These issues can be difficult to deal with and it is recommended that Bridge considers providing further information on the rights and responsibilities of tenants, and what Bridge can and cannot do as a landlord. It can be helpful to offer information on Community Justice Centres and the local police. Tenant engagement 1. Bridge have made slight improvements in tenants satisfaction with tenant engagement, with satisfaction with TE01. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge Housing involves tenants? rising from 79% to 80% in 2013. This result is also higher than the 77% average for this question in the Federation s benchmarking club. Bridge have demonstrated their commitment to engagement over many years, with the very active Tenant Advisory Group. There was also a good level of awareness of the TAG group at 57%, however, this could be improved given Bridge s long term commitment and effort to engage tenants. This result warrants further investigation and specific responses such as targeted publicity campaigns may be needed. 2. Respondents were less satisfied with the higher level of engagement - how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that Bridge listens to customers views and acts on them (TE02) at 73% and how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that customers are able to influence Bridge's decisionmaking (TE03) at 64% than the lower level How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge involves customers (TE01) at 80%. It can be difficult and time consuming for both tenants and the organisation to move towards higher levels of customer engagement. Bridge could use results of this survey to tailor tenant engagement strategies to enable greater participation. For Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 11
example, respondents were most interested in repairs and maintenance, followed by social activities, activities for older people and commenting on housing services. 3. The two most notable barriers to engagement in the survey were times and location of the meetings. This could be due to the fact that Bridge s tenant profile is almost equally divided between older and younger tenants groups, with likely different preferences for meeting times. Language barrier was also prominent in the results. These insights could be used to explore different strategies for engagement, for example, organising meetings for specific language groups. Regional and program variations in satisfaction 1. Across the survey, Leasehold had better satisfaction ratings than Capital in all headline questions apart from two repairs and maintenance related indicators (RM11:overall satisfaction with repairs and maintenance and RM14: condition of home). Overall satisfaction with repairs and maintenance (RM11) and condition of home (RM14) was higher in Capital program. However, only the difference related to the condition of home (RM 14) was statistically significant. Leasehold also had better levels of satisfaction with the way a complaint was dealt with (CA09) but this difference was not statistically significant. By area, East had higher levels of satisfaction is housing services, repairs and maintenance, neighbourhood and tenant engagement but these differences were not statistically significant. The only indicator where respondents satisfaction was higher and statistically significant was the satisfaction with the way a complaint was dealt with (CA09) where East had higher levels of satisfaction than West. It is recommended that Bridge explores the reasons for the regional and program differences in tenant satisfaction. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 12
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 (Bridge) in 2014. 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. Methodology Bridge s tenant satisfaction survey used a range of good practice techniques to ensure that tenants had a choice of ways to complete their questionnaire, the survey accurately captured tenants opinion and that the survey achieved a good response rate. 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 needs of Bridge, for example TE05 to TE08. The Federation ensured that the final questionnaire and survey methodology complied with the requirements of the new National Regulatory System for Community Housing (NRSCH). The questionnaire contained the following nine sections: 1. Demographic profiling information. 2. Housing services. 3. Complaints and appeals. 4. Repairs and maintenance. 5. Neighbourhood. 6. Communications. 7. Tenant engagement. 8. Tenants priorities 9. Comments. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 13
The majority of questions were structured using a balanced five point Likert scale, with response options ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. A census approach was used and all 1,603 households managed by Bridge were invited to participate. Each household was allocated a unique identification number, whilst still maintaining tenant confidentiality, this approach enabled returns to be monitored and for more detailed analysis work to be undertaken. Fieldwork (when tenants are asked to complete the survey) was conducted week commencing 16 th January 2014 and closed week ending 28 th February 2014. Responses received by date 90 80 79 73 70 67 60 50 42 48 47 40 36 30 20 10 0 1 24 20 22 24 21 13 14 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 Not valid-partial Valid The survey was conducted using a postal questionnaire. Questionnaires were posted to all households together with a covering letter and a prepaid response envelope. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 14
Response rate breakdown Row Labels Valid Not valid- Partial Not valid- Blank Grand Total East 289 7 1 297 Capital 146 3 1 150 Fee For Service 20 3 23 Leasehold 114 1 115 Waverley Affordable Housing 9 9 West 333 7 340 Capital 229 4 233 Fee For Service 4 4 Leasehold 100 3 103 Unknown 13 13 Grand Total 635 14 1 650 Response breakdown by language Language Not valid-partial Valid Grand Total % by language Arabic 1 31 32 41% Spanish 17 17 46% Vietnamese 41 41 45% Grand Total 14 635 649 Given the importance of maximising response rates, an SMS reminder was sent to all nonrespondents on 13th February 2014. Bridge also provided 5 prize draw incentives worth $100 each to encourage tenants to return their survey. By the closing date of week ending 28 th February 2014, the Federation had received 650 responses. Of these 15 were invalid and so discarded. This gave a final overall count of 635 usable questionnaires, representing an overall valid response rate of 40% 5. This is an excellent response rate and well above the NRSCH threshold of 25%. For this survey the overall confidence interval is +/- 3.02 with a 95% confidence level 6. This is a good level of certainty and means that when analysing the results using a base of all respondents Bridge can have a high degree of confidence that the views of respondents reflect the views of all its tenants. 5 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) 6 Please see the statistical reliability section of this report for a further information Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 15
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. The Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group The Federation s tenant satisfaction benchmarking group is an expanding reference group of nine CHPs. There are currently eight sets of 2013 data from NSW based CHPs and one set of data from a CHP based in WA. The CHPs in the benchmarking group are generally larger organisations with six tier one CHPs and 3 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 November 2013. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 16
Statistical reliability The margin of error is the range of accuracy for a response to a question. The confidence level tells you how sure we are of this result. For this survey the margin of error is +/- +/- 3.02 with a confidence level of 95%. To explain what a margin of error of +/- 3.02 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 46.98% (50 3.02) and 53.02 % (50 + 3.02) would have picked that answer (assuming a representative sample completed the survey). This means that when analysing the results using a base of all respondents, Bridge can have a good level of confidence that the views of respondents reflect the views of all its tenants. For each of the main areas of services delivered by Bridge an overall satisfaction table is supplied in this report. Within these tables at a 95% confidence level the margin of error for all respondents plus each region and program sub-group is given for combined satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Given the smaller sample sizes in each of these sub-groups there can be a wide margin of error. When there is a statistically significant difference between the levels of combined satisfaction by program or region for each of the main areas of services delivered by Bridge then this will be included within this report. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 17
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 cross tabulations should the need arise in future. Response rate The NRSCH sets standards which outline if a returned tenant survey can be counted as valid. The NRSCH states that if a returned tenant 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 635 valid returned surveys, giving an excellent response rate of 40% (15 were invalid and so discarded). This is an improvement on 2012 when an overall response rate of 30% was achieved (without applying the strict NRSCH standard). The chart below shows the proportion of all responses received from different regions this is in grey (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 red. 7 60% 50% 40% 46% 52% 37% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % of all responses received Response rate per region East West 7 2% of responses could not be allocated to a region Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 18
Length of tenure Tenants were asked how long they have been a tenant at Bridge Housing (DE01). In total, 29% of respondents have been a Bridge tenant for three to five years. More than a quarter (29%) of respondents had been a Bridge tenant for more than eleven years. DE01. How long have you been a tenant at Bridge Housing (please also include any years as a Burwood, SWISH or ESRHA tenant)? Less than a year 8% 1 to 2 years 14% 3 to 5 years 29% 6 to 10 years 20% More than 11 years 29% Base: All respondents (612) Languages spoken at home The word cloud below was created using the frequency of mentions for different languages that respondents use at home (DE03). The majority of respondents (71%) spoke English at home. Of the languages other than English, the most commonly indicated by respondents were Spanish, Arabic and Vietnamese. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 19
Cultural identity Tenants were asked which cultural group they most identified with (DE04). Just under a half of respondents (49%) identified themselves as Australian (40%) or Anglo-Celtic (9%) 4% identified themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Excluding the category other, the second largest grouping was Vietnamese (7%), followed by Chinese (5%). Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 20
Ancestry Number / percentage of respondents Australian 237 40% Anglo-Celtic 55 9% Vietnamese 39 7% Chinese 28 5% Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 26 4% Lebanese 21 4% New Zealander 16 3% Turkish 12 2% Greek 8 1% Indian 7 1% Italian 7 1% Korean 7 1% Egyptian 6 1% Filipino 6 1% Polish 5 1% Serbian 5 1% German 4 1% Sri Lankan 4 1% Dutch 3 1% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 21
Age Tenants were asked their age (DE05). 96% of respondents answered this question. The largest two grouping for age of respondents was 35-64 which accounted for 36% of respondents, and 65+ which also accounted for 36% of respondents. DE05. How old are you? 18-34 5% 35-54 36% 55-64 23% 65+ 36% Base: All respondents (549) Gender In terms of gender of respondents, 59% were female and 42% were male. DE06. Are you: Male 42% Female 59% Base: All respondents (612) Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 22
Illness and disability Tenants were asked how many people in their household had an illness or disability that had lasted, or was expected to last, at least 12 months (DE07). 400 respondents answered this question Of those respondents that answered this question 65% reported having one household member with an illness or disability that had lasted, or was expected to last, at least 12 months. 10% reported having two household members with a disability and only 3% reported having none 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? 0 22% 1 65% 2 10% 3 or more 3% Base: All respondents (400) Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 23
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, whether tenants believe Bridge treats them fairly, rent and location of home. Results overview Overall, respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with Bridge s housing services (HS07) with a combined satisfaction rating of 84% (slightly down from 85% in 2012). By program, Leasehold (89%) had statistically significant higher levels of overall combined satisfaction with housing services than Capital (82%). This is above the NRSCH 75% threshold for this indicator. The following heat map shows overall satisfaction with the housing service and compares Bridge (84%) to the Federation benchmark average (84%). HS01. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Result compared to the Federation benchmark 84% There were good levels of combined satisfaction for the different aspects of housing services, for example: Respondents reported an excellent level of satisfaction when asked about the location of their home (HS06), with a combined satisfaction rating of 92%. Respondents reported a very good level of satisfaction when asked if they considered that Bridge upheld their rights as a tenant (HS01), with a satisfaction rating of 84%. Respondents reported a very good level of satisfaction when asked how satisfied they were with the support provided to them when they first moved into home (HS04) with a combined satisfaction rating of 82%. Respondents also reported a very good level of satisfaction when asked if they considered that they rent they paid was value for money (HS05), with a combined satisfaction rating of 84%. Despite these good results, there are still areas for improvement, for example: Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 24
A sizable minority, 21% did not know or were unsure about their rights and responsibilities as tenants (HS02). A sizable minority of respondents (21%) were unsure or did not understand how their rent is calculated (HS02). Some respondents made negative comments about rents, customer service and transfers. Tenants rights and satisfaction with respect of their rights Respondents reported a good level of satisfaction when asked if they considered that Bridge upheld their rights as a tenant (HS01).There was a combined satisfaction rating of 84%, 9% combined dissatisfaction and 7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. HS01. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that your rights as a tenant are upheld by Bridge Housing? Very satisfied 47% Fairly satisfied 38% Neither 7% Fairly dissatisfied 5% Very dissatisfied 4% Base: All respondents (607) Rent and value for money A small minority of respondents (21%) were unsure or did not understand how their rent is calculated (HS02). In the comments some respondents expressed their opinions as to the administration of the rent review process and the frequency of this process. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 25
HS02. Do you understand how your rent is calculated? Yes 79% No 7% Unsure 14% Base: All respondents (609) Respondents reported a very good level of satisfaction when asked if they considered their rent to be value for money (HS05). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 84%, 8% combined dissatisfaction and 7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. HS05~HS06. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? HS06. The location of your home (569) 69 23 4 3 2 HS05. Value for money for the rent you pay (606) 48 36 7 5 3 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Inspections 47% of respondents reported having a property inspection within the previous 6 months; 33% within the last year; 14% between one and two years ago; 2% within the last five years, and 4% reported never having an inspection (HS03). Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 26
HS03. When was the last time you had a property inspection? Less than 6 months ago 47% Less than 12 months ago 33% Less than 2 years ago 14% Less than 5 years ago 2% I have never had one 4% Base: All respondents (531) Support provided when first moved into home Respondents reported a very good level of satisfaction when asked how satisfied they were with the support provided to them when they first moved into home (HS04). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 82%, 8% combined dissatisfaction and 10% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. HS04. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support provided when you first moved into your home? Very satisfied 53% Fairly satisfied 29% Neither 10% Fairly dissatisfied 5% Very dissatisfied 3% Base: All respondents (603) This is a slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 83% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 27
Location of home Respondents reported an excellent level of satisfaction when asked about the location of their home (HS06). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 92%, 5% combined dissatisfaction and 4% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. HS05~HS06. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? HS06. The location of your home (569) 69 23 4 3 2 HS05. Value for money for the rent you pay (606) 48 36 7 5 3 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 91% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 28
Overall satisfaction with housing services Overall, respondents reported a very high level of satisfaction with Bridge s housing services (HS07). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 84%, 9% combined dissatisfaction and 7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, this result is slightly lower than the 2012 result when a combined total of 87% were satisfied. This is above the NRSCH 75% threshold for this indicator. This is a very slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 85% were satisfied. HS07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Very satisfied 44% Fairly satisfied 40% Neither 7% Fairly dissatisfied 6% Very dissatisfied 3% Base: All respondents (612) When overall satisfaction with service was analysed by program and region and there were some slight variations in the levels of combined satisfaction. By program, Leasehold had the highest level of satisfaction (89%) and by region East had a higher level than West (86% compared to 82%). When analysing a question by a particular sub-group such as region or program there may be a small number of respondents in each of these groups which means there can be a wide margin of error. At a 95% confidence level the margin of error for each region and program sub-group is given at the end of this section. Taking this margin of error into account there were statistically significant differences between the levels of combined satisfaction by program. Leasehold (89%) had statistically significant higher levels of overall combined satisfaction with housing services than Capital (82%). There were no statistically significant differences by region. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 29
HS07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3 7 8 42 40 6 3 9 41 41 Capital (349) FFS (32) Leasehold (204) 5 1 39 50 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents HS07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? by Region 100% 80% 4 5 5 2 7 9 60% 41 40 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither 40% Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 20% 46 42 0% East (272) West (313) Base: All respondents Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 30
HS07. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the services provided by Bridge Housing? Total Program Region Base Capital FFS Leasehold East West 612 349 32 204 272 313 % Satisfied 84% 82% 81% 89% 86% 82% 95% Confidence Interval ±3% ±4% ±14% ±4% ±4% ±4% Very satisfied 269 140 13 102 124 131 44% 40% 41% 50% 46% 42% Fairly satisfied 245 145 13 79 111 126 40% 42% 41% 39% 41% 40% Neither 42 27 3 10 13 27 7% 8% 9% 5% 5% 9% Fairly dissatisfied 38 25 1 10 13 23 6% 7% 3% 5% 5% 7% Very dissatisfied 18 12 2 3 11 6 3% 3% 6% 1% 4% 2% % Dissatisfied 9% 11% 9% 6% 9% 9% 95% Confidence Interval ±2% ±3% ±10% ±3% ±3% ±3% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 31
Written comments on housing services and Bridge generally A record of all the written comments supplied by respondents is included in the Excel Comments Toolkit supplied with this report. There were 123 comments made about housing services and Bridge generally. There was a balance of positive and negative comments. Positive comments The majority of positive comments focused on good service and general satisfaction with Bridge. For example: My house manager is and was most helpful in selecting a dwelling that was suitable for me and my wellbeing and also very empathetic I think Bridge Housing is great. I am very happy and satisfied with the service I've received over the last 5 years I would like to say a very special thank you to Bridge Housing for my home for my son. We are very happy with the size/maintenance and service. I have family in DOH and they are very unhappy. I compare with Bridge Housing and I am so grateful I am with Bridge. Thank you. Negative comments The negative comments focused on rents, customer service and transfers. For example: I have an issue with the way rent is calculated- should be on an annual basis not on 4 weeks. Our income fluctuates. There should be more flexibility around this. I am very dissatisfied with how long it takes for a rent review. I am extremely dissatisfied that if our rent goes up we NEVER get a 60 day notice. I think there are some very weak areas in the rent review process and there should be more staff so that process is more efficient. I find the lack of communication extremely frustrating. Despite being proactive I still am not kept informed by staff. Even after assurances this does not happen. It leaves me feeling like I am bothering them. I feel very unsupported by Bridge. Whilst I appreciate my 'value for money' housing very much I am also made to feel I am being ungrateful if I have an issue with Bridge Yes, when you ask for a transfer you should get more time than 3 months. Everything out there is very expensive, very hard to find something that is in your allowed price bracket and there is too many people looking for cheap rent. I applied for 3 units was rejected 2 times, would have liked more time and there was Christmas in between. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 32
Section 3: 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 relation to both complaints and appeals 8. Results overview In common with all other tenant satisfaction surveys undertaken by the Federation, the results in this section show the lowest levels of satisfaction overall. For example, the combined satisfaction rating for overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with (CA09) was 39% - compared to 51% in 2012. Since there was only a small number of respondents that made a complaint there is a wide margin of error. Despite this there is a statistically significant difference between the levels of satisfaction reported for East region and West region. There was no statistically significant differences by program. A significant minority of respondents were unaware of how to complain to Bridge (31%). This result has improved since 2012, when 36% were unaware or were unsure how to complain. However, there was still a large proportion of respondents who were unaware or unsure how to appeal a decision made by Bridge (53%), a slight improvement since 2012 (54% in 2012). 8 Section 3.6, National Community Housing Standards Manual third edition Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 33
How to appeal a decision Just over a half of respondents (52%) were either unsure of or did not know how to appeal a decision made by Bridge (CA01). This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when 54% were either unsure of or did not know how to appeal a decision made by Bridge. CA01. Do you know how to appeal a decision made by Bridge Housing? Yes 47% No 24% Unsure 28% Base: All respondents (609) This level of knowledge about how to appeal is very close to the Federation s benchmarking group average for this question (46%) compared to Bridge s 47%. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 34
How to make a complaint 69% of respondents reported that they knew how to make a complaint to Bridge (CA02). This still leaves a significant minority of respondents (31%) that were either unsure of or did not know how to make a complaint. This is an improvement compared to 2012 when 64% knew how to make a complaint to Bridge. CA02. Do you know how to make a complaint to Bridge Housing? Yes 69% No 14% Unsure 17% Base: All respondents (609) Satisfaction with the complaints service In total 131 respondents reported making a complaint to Bridge in the past 12 months (CA03). These respondents were asked about their experience of making a complaint to Bridge. CA03. Have you made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months? Yes 22% No 78% Base: All respondents (608) Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 35
Respondents that had made a complaint to Bridge in the past 12 months were asked about their satisfaction with various aspects of complaint handling as well as their satisfaction with how their complaint was dealt with. There were some notable decreases in satisfaction levels compared to 2012. Overall customer satisfaction with how their complaint was dealt with was fairly low, 39% combined satisfaction. There was 43% combined dissatisfaction rate. This is a decline when compared to 2012 when a combined total of 51% were satisfied. This is a considerable decrease compared to 2012 when 51% were satisfied with the way the complaint was dealt with. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 36
CA04~CA09. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of Bridge Housing's complaints service? CA04. How easy it was to make your complaint (129) 24 43 14 15 5 CA05. The information and advice provided by staff (125) 21 35 12 23 9 CA08. The outcome of your complaint (120) 23 23 22 14 18 CA07. The speed with which your complaint was dealt with (122) 18 23 16 20 24 CA06. How well you were kept informed about the progress of your complaint (124) 16 24 19 19 21 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents who have made a complaint to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 37
Overall satisfaction with the complaints service CA09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with? Very satisfied 21% Fairly satisfied 26% Neither 21% Fairly dissatisfied 25% Very dissatisfied 27% Respondents that had made a complaint to Bridge in the past 12 months were asked about their experience. All questions scored a low satisfaction rating and had decreased satisfaction levels compared to 2012. The combined satisfaction level with how easy it was to make your complaint (CA04) was 67%. This is a considerable decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 78% were satisfied. There was a low combined satisfaction level with the information and advice provided by staff (CA05) at 56%. This is a considerable decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 65% were satisfied. There was a low combined satisfaction level with how well you were kept informed about the progress of your complaint (CA06) at 40%. This is a decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 44% were satisfied. There was a low combined satisfaction level with the speed of with which your complaint was dealt with (CA06) at 41%. This is a decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 49% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 38
There was a low combined satisfaction level with the outcome of your complaint (CA08) at 46%. This is a decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 51% were satisfied. Overall satisfaction with the complaints service Respondents reported a low level of satisfaction with overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with (CA09). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 39%, 43% combined dissatisfaction and 18% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is a notable decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 51% were satisfied. When overall satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with (CA09) was analysed by region and program there were some slight variations in the levels of combined satisfaction. By region East had the highest level of combined satisfaction (48%) and by program Leasehold had the highest (52%). When analysing a question by a particular sub-group such as region or program there may be a small number of respondents in each of these groups which means there can be a wide margin of error. At a 95% confidence level the margin of error for each region and program sub-group is given in the table at the end of this section. Given the small number of respondents there is a wide margin of error for this question and no statistically significant difference between the levels of satisfaction was found by program. By region, there was a statistically significant difference between the levels of satisfaction between East and West. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 39
CA09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13 26 33 13 22 22 33 17 17 21 17 35 14 17 Capital (86) FFS (6) Leasehold (23) Base: All respondents that made a complaint Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied CA09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with? by Region 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 25 22 16 25 11 25 27 14 21 14 East (56) West (59) Base: All respondents that made a complaint Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 40
CA09. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you about how your complaint was dealt with? Total Program Region Base Capital FFS Leasehold East West 120 86 6 23 56 59 % Satisfied 39% 35% 17% 52% 48% 27% 95% Confidence Interval ±9% ±10% ±30% ±20% ±13% ±11% Very satisfied 21 12-8 12 8 18% 14% - 35% 21% 14% Fairly satisfied 26 18 1 4 15 8 22% 21% 17% 17% 27% 14% Neither 21 15 1 5 6 15 18% 17% 17% 22% 11% 25% Fairly dissatisfied 25 19 2 3 9 15 21% 22% 33% 13% 16% 25% Very dissatisfied 27 22 2 3 14 13 23% 26% 33% 13% 25% 22% % Dissatisfied 43% 48% 67% 26% 41% 47% 95% Confidence Interval ±9% ±11% ±38% ±18% ±13% ±13% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 41
Section 4: 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 9. Results overview There were good improvements from the 2012/3 results in this section. Tenants satisfaction with repairs rose 6% and satisfaction with property condition increased by 1%. Across all surveys undertaken by the Federation, the repairs and maintenance service is often one of the lowest rated areas of service. The importance of repairs and maintenance is apparent from the gap analysis (see the section on tenant priorities). This demonstrates that this area of service is the most important to tenants but it also has the largest combined dissatisfaction rating (excluding satisfaction with the complaint service). In total, 77% of respondents had an overall combined satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service (RM11), up from when 71% in 2012. Taking the margin of error into account there were no statistically significant difference between the levels of combined satisfaction by region and program. Comments suggest that respondents were most concerned with the length of time taken to complete a repair, condition of property and the quality of repairs. The total of 77% is slightly above the NRSCH threshold for this indicator (75%). As illustrated in the heat map below, this total is right on the Federation benchmark average (77%). RM12. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge Housing provides? Result compared to the Federation benchmark 77% Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with the condition of their home (RM014), with a combined satisfaction rating of 84% (same rate as in 2012). Once again, this should be seen in the context NRSCH threshold for this indicator (75%). 9 Hood and Smedley (2009) How to develop and monitor local performance measures House Mark Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 42
Also respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with Bridge s out-of-hours emergency repairs maintenance repairs service (RM13), with a combined satisfaction rating of 80% (a very significant improvement on 59% in 2012). Overall the repairs and maintenance section contains very positive results. Satisfaction with repairs completed in the preceding 12 months In total 414 respondents reported a repair in the preceding 12 months (RM01). These respondents were asked about the service they received when reporting their last repair. RM01. Have you reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months? Yes 68% No 32% Base: All respondents (611) The most frequent way of requesting a repair by respondents was contacting Bridge s repair team (49%). Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 43
RM02. How did you request your repair? With repair team 49% With your housing manager 30% In person 11% Other 9% Via email 5% Base: All respondents who have reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (372) Respondents were asked specific questions about various aspects of their last repair in the preceding 12 months (RM03 RM10). There were some good increases in combined satisfaction, respondents gave some high levels of combined satisfaction to these questions. In particular respondents were very satisfied with the conduct of staff and the way their telephone call to report a repair was handled: A very high combined satisfaction rating of 85% for my call was answered in a timely manner or my phone message was returned promptly (RM03). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 79% were satisfied. A very high combined satisfaction rating of 88% for the staff were helpful and attentive (RM04). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 81% were satisfied. A very high combined satisfaction rating of 87% for the contractor was respectful and courteous towards me and my property (RM07). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 83% were satisfied. A very high combined satisfaction rating of 84% for the contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum, and left my property clean and tidy (RM08). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 77% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 44
Although still respectable, there were lower levels of combined satisfaction with the contractors organising appointments, staff advising how long it will take to make the repair and being told why and when a repair will be dealt with. A high combined satisfaction rating of 77% for the contractor called me to make an appointment (RM06). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 72% were satisfied. A combined satisfaction rating of 74% for staff advised me how long it would take to make the repair (RM05). This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 65% were satisfied. A good combined satisfaction rating of 78% for the quality of the repair carried out at your home (RM10). This is question was not asked in 2012. A low level of combined satisfaction rating of 62% for if the repair was not completed, I was told why and when it would be dealt with. This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 58% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 45
RM03~RM11. In relation to your last repair, that took place in the last 12 months, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following? RM04. The staff were helpful and attentive (400) RM07. The contractor was respectful and courteous towards me and my property (390) RM03. My call was answered in a timely manner or my phone message was returned promptly (401) RM08. The contractor kept dirt and mess to a minimum, and left my property clean and tidy (384) RM10. The quality of the repair carried out at your home (384) RM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services? (396) RM06. The contractor called me to make an appointment (394) RM05. Staff advised me how long it would take to make the repair (394) RM09. If the repair was not completed, I was told why and when it would be dealt with (352) 58 30 7 41 60 27 9 22 54 31 6 4 4 59 24 12 22 52 26 11 6 5 50 27 11 6 6 52 25 13 6 5 47 27 15 7 4 43 19 25 5 8 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents who have reported a repair to Bridge Housing in the last 12 months Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 46
Satisfaction with property condition Respondents reported a very good level of satisfaction with the condition of their property (RM14). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 85%, 7% combined dissatisfaction and 8% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Once again, this should be seen in the context NRSCH threshold for this indicator (75%). This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 84% were satisfied. RM14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the condition of your home? Very satisfied 44% Fairly satisfied 40% Neither 8% Fairly dissatisfied 6% Very dissatisfied 1% Base: All respondents (538) Bridge s out-of-hours emergency repairs service In total 96 respondents (16%) have used Bridge s out-of-hours emergency repairs service (RM12). RM12. Have you used Bridge Housing s out-of-hours emergency repairs service? Yes 16% No 84% Base: All respondents (585) Respondents reported a good level of satisfaction with Bridge s out-of-hours emergency repairs service (RM13). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 80%, 12% combined dissatisfaction and 9% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 47
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is a good result considering the difficulties of providing an out-ofhours emergency repairs service. RM13. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the out-of-hours emergency repairs service? Very satisfied 52% Fairly satisfied 28% Neither 9% Very dissatisfied 6% Fairly dissatisfied 5% Base: All respondents who have used Bridge Housing's out-of-hours emergency repairs service (94) This is a notable improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 59% were satisfied. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 48
Overall satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service Whilst the levels of satisfaction with the individual aspects of the repairs and maintenance service were quite high, the overall satisfaction with repairs and maintenance (RM11) was somewhat lower but still very good and certainly above the NRSCH benchmark of 75%. There was a combined satisfaction rating of 77%, 12% combined dissatisfaction and 6% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is a good improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 71% were satisfied. When overall satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service (RM11) was analysed by region and program there were some slight variations in the levels of combined satisfaction. By program Capital had the highest level of combined satisfaction (79%) and by region East had the highest (78%) RM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services? Very satisfied 50% Fairly satisfied 27% Neither 11% Fairly dissatisfied 6% Very dissatisfied 6% Base: All respondents (396) When analysing a question by a particular sub-group such as region or program there may be a small number of respondents in each of these groups which means there can be a wide margin of error. At a 95% confidence level the margin of error for each region and program sub-group is given in the table at the end of this section. Taking this margin of error into account there were no statistically significant difference between the levels of combined satisfaction by region and program. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 49
RM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7 5 10 31 48 5 18 14 23 41 Capital (240) FFS (22) Leasehold (117) 6 6 14 20 55 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents RM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services? by Region 100% 90% 80% 7 5 11 6 7 11 70% 60% 50% 25 29 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither 40% Fairly dissatisfied 30% 20% 52 47 Very dissatisfied 10% 0% East (178) West (201) Base: All respondents Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 50
RM14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the condition of your home? by Region 100% 90% 80% 2 6 8 1 6 8 70% 60% 50% 41 40 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither 40% Fairly dissatisfied 30% 20% 43 46 Very dissatisfied 10% 0% East (240) West (272) Base: All respondents RM14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the condition of your home? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6 7 43 44 4 54 39 Capital (310) FFS (28) Leasehold (174) 3 6 11 34 45 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents Bridge Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2014 Report Page 51
RM11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance services that Bridge provides? Total Program Region Base Capital FFS Leasehold East West 396 240 22 117 178 201 % Satisfied 77% 79% 64% 74% 78% 76% 95% Confidence Interval ±4% ±5% ±20% ±8% ±6% ±6% Very satisfied 198 114 9 64 93 94 50% 48% 41% 55% 52% 47% Fairly satisfied 106 75 5 23 45 58 27% 31% 23% 20% 25% 29% Neither 44 23 3 16 19 23 11% 10% 14% 14% 11% 11% Fairly dissatisfied 23 12 4 7 9 14 6% 5% 18% 6% 5% 7% Very dissatisfied 25 16 1 7 12 12 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% % Dissatisfied 12% 12% 23% 12% 12% 13% 95% Confidence Interval ±3% ±4% ±18% ±6% ±5% ±5% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 52
Written comments on repairs and maintenance A record of all the written comments supplied by respondents is included in the Excel Comments Toolkit supplied with this report. There were 39 comments made about repairs and maintenance. Apart from a few neutral comments about repairs and maintenance, the vast majority of comments were negative. Neutral comments I am happy overall with all your care and services. I found some messages need to be repeated and my repairs taken too long to fix. I would like if the Housing Co-Op staff give us a tenant receipt so when we give a complaint or ask for repairs like Centrelink does so we have a call back [?] to address any difference when we are not got back to and we have proof of calls made The service is good but it could be better if the maintenance and cleaning service came in every second or third week. There is some unattended stuff at the back of my building which has been dumped by tenants. If there is some service that can clean that it would be very helpful. Negative comments The most common negative comments about repairs and maintenance focused on the length of time taken to complete a repair, condition of property and the quality of repairs. For example: Repairs. Waiting to be done. That were listed by inspection, going back 2 years. Very bad cracks in kitchen. Cement dust NOT HEALTHY. Please I hope you can do the repairs The street Wauchope Crescent South Coogee is very bad- the rubbish bins are a disgrace, rubbish bins everywhere, bins overflowing. Birds living from rubbish bins with bird poo everywhere it looks a mess. The street smells from rubbish. It's embarrassing to have visitors to your home. The lights in the building don't go on till 8:20pm, it's already dark for an hour and a half. It looks dark and dingy. Have been dissatisfied with some maintenance issues. From the day I moved in one of the lights have not worked and have reported it a few times. Service staff (electrician) has not been able to fix it. BH services have ignored it Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 53
Section 5: Neighbourhood Section overview This section provides information on tenants views about their local neighbourhood. This information can be used to identify if there are any emerging neighbourhood issues in any of the communities Bridge serves and to determine if additional partnerships are needed in particular localities. Results overview There were very good levels of combined satisfaction with Bridge tenants neighbourhoods. For example, combined satisfaction with individual aspects of neighbourhood ranged from 86% to 91%. This was one of the best performing service areas. Reflecting these very good results combined overall satisfaction with neighbourhood (NH20) stood at 86%. Taking the margin of error into account there were statistically significant differences between the levels of combined overall satisfaction with neighbourhood by program. Leasehold had statistically significant higher levels of overall combined satisfaction with neighbourhood than Capital. There were no statistically significant differences in satisfaction by region. Satisfaction with home and neighbourhood Respondents were asked specific questions about their home and the neighbourhood in which is it based (NH01 NH05). Respondents gave some very high levels of combined satisfaction to these questions: An excellent combined satisfaction rating of 91% for the services available in your area (e.g. schools, doctors) (NH03). This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 90% were satisfied. An excellent combined satisfaction rating of 91% for the transport available in your area (NH04). This is a slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 93% were satisfied An excellent combined satisfaction rating of 91% for the suitability of your home to your circumstances (NH01). This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 88% were satisfied A very good combined satisfaction rating of 87% for the safety of your home (NH02). Bridge Housing tenant survey 2014 report Page 54
This is a slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 88% were satisfied A very good combined satisfaction rating of 86% for the size of your home (NH05). This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 85% were satisfied. NH01~NH05. In relation to your home, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects? NH04. Transport available in your area (597) 67 24 5 2 2 NH03. Services available in your area (e.g. schools, doctors) (588) 66 24 6 3 1 NH01. Suitability of your home to your circumstances (594) 63 27 5 3 2 NH05. Size of your home (594) 61 25 5 6 3 NH02. Safety of your home (591) 56 31 6 5 3 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Neighbourhood problems Respondents were also asked if their neighbourhood had any problems with a range of issues (NH06 NH18). For each possible issue the large majority of respondents reported there were no problems in their neighbourhood, except for car parking (NH06). Despite this there were still some issues that a significant minority of respondents reported as a problem. The following three issues had the largest combined percentage of respondents reporting them as either a major or minor problem: The issue with the largest combined percentage for either a major or minor problem was car parking (NHO7). This had a combined total of 44%. This is a slight worsening compared to 2012 when a combined total of 40% reported this as either a major or minor problem. The issue with the second largest combined percentage for either a major or minor problem was rubbish or litter (NHO7). This had a combined total of 40%. This is a slight worsening compared to 2012 when a combined total of 38% reported this as either a major or minor problem. Bridge Housing tenant survey 2014 report Page 55
The issue with the third largest combined percentage for either a major or minor problem was noisy neighbours (NHO8). This had a combined total of 40%. This is a slight improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 44% reported this as either a major or minor problem. Bridge Housing tenant survey 2014 report Page 56
NH06~NH18. To what extent are any of the following a problem in your neighbourhood? NH06. Car parking (590) NH08. Noisy neighbours (600) NH07. Rubbish or litter (595) NH13. Drunk or rowdy behaviour (598) NH14.Vandalism and graffiti (588) NH09. Dog fouling/dog mess (592) NH11. Disruptive children/teenagers (583) NH16. Drug use or dealing (593) NH10. Other problems with pets and animals (588) NH18. Other crimes (580) NH15. People damaging your property (592) NH12. Racial or other harassment (590) NH17. Abandoned or burnt vehicles (594) 22 22 56 11 30 60 12 28 60 6 19 75 6 15 79 5 15 80 4 13 83 4 13 83 5 12 83 3 14 83 3 12 85 4 10 86 2 5 94 Major problem Minor problem Not a problem at all Base: All respondents Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 57
Neighbourhood improved or declined in the last three years? There was a positive response when respondents were asked if they considered if their neighbourhood had improved or declined in the last three years (NH19). Only a combined total of 11% (8% slightly and 3% greatly) considered that there had been a decline. This is a slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 5% considered that there had been a decline. Graph NH19 below shows that regions reported very encouraging levels of improvement in their neighbourhoods. For example 42% of respondents in West region said the neighbourhood had greatly or slightly improved and 39% of respondents in East said the neighbourhood had greatly or slightly improved. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 58
Reflecting the high levels of satisfaction with the individual aspects of neighbourhood there was also a very high level of overall satisfaction with the neighbourhood (NH20). There was a combined satisfaction rating of 86%, 8% combined dissatisfaction and 6% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is a very slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 87% were satisfied. Overall satisfaction with neighbourhood NH20. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? Very satisfied 54% Fairly satisfied 32% Neither 6% Fairly dissatisfied 5% Very dissatisfied 3% Base: All respondents (592) When combined overall satisfaction with neighbourhood (NH20) was analysed by region and program there were some slight variations in the levels of combined satisfaction. By region East had the highest level of combined satisfaction (88%) and by program Leasehold had the highest (93%). When analysing a question by a particular sub-group such as region or program there may be a small number of respondents in each of these groups which means there can be a wide margin of error. At a 95% confidence level the margin of error for each region and program sub-group is given in the following table. Taking this margin of error into account there were some statistically significant differences between the levels of combined satisfaction by program. Leasehold had statistically significant higher levels of overall combined satisfaction with neighbourhood than Capital. There was no statistically significant difference between the levels of satisfaction by region. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 59
NH20. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? by Region East (267) 59 29 4 4 4 West (299) 49 36 8 5 3 Base: All respondents Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied NH20. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? by Program 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4 5 9 36 47 3 9 16 69 Capital (337) FFS (32) Leasehold (197) 2 4 2 30 63 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 60
NH20. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? Total Program Region Base Capital FFS Leasehold East West 592 337 32 197 267 299 % Satisfied 86% 82% 84% 93% 88% 85% 95% Confidence Interval ±3% ±4% ±13% ±3% ±4% ±4% Very satisfied 317 157 22 125 158 146 54% 47% 69% 63% 59% 49% Fairly satisfied 192 121 5 59 77 108 32% 36% 16% 30% 29% 36% Neither 37 29 3 3 12 23 6% 9% 9% 2% 4% 8% Fairly dissatisfied 28 16 1 7 10 14 5% 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% Very dissatisfied 18 14 1 3 10 8 3% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% % Dissatisfied 8% 9% 6% 5% 7% 7% 95% Confidence Interval ±2% ±3% ±8% ±3% ±3% ±3% Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 61
Written comments on neighbourhood A record of all the written comments supplied by respondents is included in the Excel Comments Toolkit supplied with this report. There were twelve comments made about the neighbourhood. Apart from one comment, all comments were negative and focused on neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour. Positive comment No, they have been really good. I highly recommend them. It has been an improvement from Swish housing but they were quite good too. Bridge has been more active in dealing with dodgy law-breaking tenants who gave their neighbours hell. I feel safer now. I also find Bridge Housing to be fair. Negative comments I believe after you take one tenant's word on something you should check the complaint out thoroughly because some tenants have nothing better to do but sit around all day drinking coffee together gossiping about others. I have an AVO against flat [number] yet still he is here months later have no privacy from him, he has psychiatric problems. Spies on me when I open my door. I went to Bridge Housing with a letter from a GP about another tenant smoking. The strong smoke affects my health and I am woken up from the smoke. I have NOT heard from the Housing Officer at all about it. * Solution to this would be a letter from Bridge to all tenants that smoking is not allowed in house/room. Smoking area is outside front and back yard used by all others smokers here. My health has been seriously affected. * Legal aid advised me on tenants rights regarding policy on smoking. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 62
Section 6: Communication Section overview This section of the survey asked tenants about their experience of communicating with Bridge. Results overview There were good levels of combined satisfaction for communication. For example, there was a combined satisfaction rating of 85% for the way Bridge Housing provides you with information" (CM09). Also there was a good level of combined satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with inquires efficiently (CM06) at 81%. This is a great improvement compared to 2012-62%. Taking the margin of error into account, Leasehold had a statistically significant higher level of overall combined satisfaction with communications than Capital. There were no statistically significant differences by region. Communication with Bridge during the preceding 12 months In total 502 respondents (82%) had made contact with Bridge in the preceding 12 months (CM01). These respondents were asked about their experience of communicating with Bridge. CM01. Have you made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months? Yes 82% No 18% Base: All respondents (610) Reasons for contact during the preceding 12 months Respondents that had made contact with Bridge in the preceding 12 months were asked their reason for this contact (CM02). The top three reasons were as follows: About repairs and maintenance, 295 respondents (60%) About rent, 149 respondents (30%) About tenancy transfer, 37 respondents (7%). Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 63
CM02. What was the reason that you contacted Bridge Housing? Repairs and maintenance 60% Rent 30% Tenancy transfer 7% Neighbourhood issues 6% Communal area issues 6% Other 15% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (494) The most common method for contact with Bridge by far was by phone (73%). CM03. How did you last contact Bridge Housing? By phone 73% In person 21% By email 9% By letter 3% Home visit 1% Other 4% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (490) Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 64
The majority of respondents (68%) found it easy to get hold of the right person. CM04. How easy or difficult was it to get hold of the right person? Easy 68% Difficult 19% Neither 13% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (481) The great majority of respondents (74%) found that their inquiry was answered within a reasonable time. CM05. Was your enquiry answered within a reasonable time? Yes 74% No 15% Unsure 10% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (473) Satisfaction with communication during the preceding 12 months There was a high combined satisfaction rating for the ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently" (CM06) at 81%. This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 62% were satisfied. There was a somewhat lower satisfaction rating with the final outcome of your query" (CM07) at 73%. Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 65
This is an improvement compared to 2012 when a combined total of 62% were satisfied. CM06~CM07. When you contacted Bridge Housing, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following? CM06. The ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently (478) 49 32 8 6 5 CM07. The final outcome of your query (450) 45 28 12 7 8 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months The majority of respondents found Bridge s staff helpful (79%) This is a decrease compared to 2012 when 90% of respondents found Bridges staff helpful. CM08. Did you find Bridge Housing's staff helpful or unhelpful? Helpful 79% Unhelpful 7% Neither helpful nor unhelpful 14% Base: All respondents who have made contact with Bridge Housing in the last 12 months (481) Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 66
Satisfaction with information provided There was a very high combined satisfaction rating with the way Bridge Housing provides you with information" (CM09) at 85%. This is a very slight decrease compared to 2012 when a combined total of 86% were satisfied. CM09. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Bridge Housing provides you with information? Very satisfied 48% Fairly satisfied 37% Neither 8% Fairly dissatisfied 5% Very dissatisfied 2% Base: All respondents (484) Ways of providing information Respondents found that letters (93%) and newsletters (81%) as the two most useful ways of providing them with information, followed by SMS (61%). Bridge Tenant Satisfaction survey 2014 Report Page 67