MAGNA HOUSING ASSOCIATION

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
ON THE  RESIDENT CONSULTATION ON SHELTERED SERVICES

15 OCTOBER 2009
 
1.  INTRODUCTION

1.1  Following the recent inspection by the Audit Commission, they recommended that MHA “develop and publish a suite of measurable and challenging service standards in consultation with residents”.

1.2 We committed to undertake research with a sample of MHA sheltered residents to identify what changes or service standards they would like to see regarding grounds maintenance, window cleaning, communal cleaning.

1.3 This report provides a summary of the residents focus groups and research obtained through surveys.

1.3 The consultation period ran from 20 April 09 and closed on 23 June 2009. 

2.    THE APPROACH WE USED IN THIS CONSULTATION

2.1      We offered a range of consultation options, these included:

2.1.1 Focus groups – we held one focus group.
2.1.2 Postal surveys –  A postal survey was also used, for grounds maintenance, window cleaning and communal cleaning.
                  
3.     THE AUDIENCE WE REACHED 

3.1 We obtained the views from 171 residents through this consultation exercise.
We achieved a 95% confidence level with a 7% confidence interval, which means we can be between 88% and 100% positive that if all sheltered residents had responded it would have given us the same outcome.


4. THE OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION

Grounds Maintenance, Communal Cleaning and Window Cleaning
4.1 159 Sheltered residents responded to the grounds maintenance survey which also included window cleaning and communal cleaning.  This was a popular survey, some residents contacted us to ask if they could have a copy of the questionnaire as they would like to give their views.  12 Residents attended the focus group. We found that

4.1.1 63% of sheltered residents said the service meets their expectations.
4.1.2 79% were very or fairly satisfied with grass cutting.
4.1.3 A higher percentage (45%) of sheltered residents were fairly or very dissatisfied with the weeding of flower beds than those who were fairly or very satisfied (44%).
4.1.4 Sheltered residents were then asked to prioritise a list of grounds maintenance services.  Grass cutting was given the highest priority (54%), followed by grass collection 32%.
4.1.5   48% of sheltered residents would like to see more information on ground maintenance in OpenDoor.
4.1.6   80% of residents thought the frequency of communal cleaning was just
           right.
4.1.7   89% were satisfied with the cleaning of the communal hallway.
4.1.8   84% were satisfied with the cleaning of the communal stairs.
4.1.9   88% were satisfied with the cleaning of the communal landing
4.1.10   84% were satisfied with the cleaning of the communal room.
4.1.11   88% of residents are satisfied with the window cleaning service.
4.1.12   65% think the service is value for money, 14% do not think it is value
             for money and 21% don’t know.

 Comments from Focus Group
Overall comments • Happy with the service provided
• Just wish we were listened to
• Not happy that SHO do not call at same time of day.
• Would like more washing line space instead of garden
• Please fill cobbles in – cannot believe these are allowed in sheltered schemes
Window cleaning • Very happy, this has improved since new windows
• Very happy with the service and standard
• Not happy at all with the service just sloshes water over the windows and rubs with a brush.
Grass cutting • They are a law unto themselves, some cuts are better than others.
• Would like a text to say when they are coming so all furniture can be removed for them to cut properly.
• Would like some jobs to be completed/  Bushes get trimmed but need a good prune back as overhanging some of the paths.
• Would like the grass picked up.
• Flower beds need a lot of work as the people are getting older and cannot do them.
Communal cleaning • Happy with this
• They are in and out very quickly
• Not happy with how they wash the stairs, they wash the top of the step but you can see all the water marks that have run down the stairs

 

 


5.   HOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS CONSULTATION WILL SHAPE SERVICES 

5.1  This report will be presented to the Head of Building Services and the Head of Housing Services to discuss contents with appropriate residents working groups.

7  RESIDENT SATISFACTION WITH CONSULTATION (FOCUS GROUPS)

7.1 The feedback that we received from residents who attended these focus groups is detailed below.

7.1.1 Everyone that attended the Focus Group understood why they were being asked to attend and what the Focus Group could and could not influence.

7.1.2 Everyone agreed that adequate information had been provided, which was easy to read and understand.

7.1.3 All agreed the information they were given and the questions they were asked were fair and balanced.

7.1.4 All felt they had been given the opportunity to say everything they want to say and that they were given enough support to participate.

7.1.5 Everyone felt there contribution had been respected and made a difference.

7.1.6 Residents were then asked to give comments on the Focus Group and how it could be improved. 

8.1.6.1 Found out many things I did not know
8.1.6.2 Focus groups are a vital part of resident participation.