es<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
Village Management Services, Inc.<\/p>\n
2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey
\nTable of Contents<\/p>\n
Purpose<\/p>\n
a<\/p>\n
Response<\/p>\n
Promotion and Accessibility<\/p>\n
teseeeteeeettetetttettcttttsettatenttesecttsssettstesttssetttssscttstettasssttasacettanenas<\/p>\n
Satisfaction by Length of Residency<\/p>\n
AY<\/p>\n
Overall Satisfaction<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
A NY<\/p>\n
Satisfaction by Function<\/p>\n
Transportation Satisfaction<\/p>\n
eeeesectetetiteatcttcetettatecctestcttessetatsetttstcetessctttsestttssettasesttasssttsarenas<\/p>\n
Communication Satisfaction<\/p>\n
teseeeteeeettetetttettcttttsettatenttesecttsssettstesttssetttssscttstettasssttasacettanenas<\/p>\n
Web vs. Paper<\/p>\n
eeeeseetettectettetttetettettectettceteteestttsetttsseetastecttsesttestettossettesestttstetttssettesscttassettn<\/p>\n
Considerations for Future Surveys<\/p>\n
NP<\/p>\n
1
\nPurpose<\/p>\n
On May 22, 2024, VMS senior management and board directors convened for a strategic<\/p>\n
planning session to define priorities for 2024-2027. Among the agreed-upon goals was a<\/p>\n
commitment to \u201cProvide exceptional service.\u201d However, like any goal, this objective requires a<\/p>\n
clear and reliable means of measuring progress and success.<\/p>\n
To address this, the VMS board appointed an ad hoc committee to identify an appropriate<\/p>\n
measurement tool. The committee recommended conducting a resident satisfaction survey<\/p>\n
with the following key objectives:<\/p>\n
\u00b0<\/p>\n
Measure satisfaction with the everyday services provided by VMS.<\/p>\n
\u00b0<\/p>\n
Identify areas for targeted improvement.<\/p>\n
\u00b0<\/p>\n
Ensure the survey is designed for repeated use to allow meaningful comparisons over<\/p>\n
time.<\/p>\n
Keep costs\u2014both financial and staff time\u2014manageable to enable annual<\/p>\n
administration.<\/p>\n
Build confidence in the survey results among residents.<\/p>\n
Build confidence in the survey results among staff.<\/p>\n
Maximize representation from all resident groups to ensure inclusive and balanced<\/p>\n
feedback.<\/p>\n
This approach supports VMS\u2019s efforts to consistently evaluate and enhance its services,<\/p>\n
ensuring they align with resident expectations and organizational goals.
\nSurvey Methodology and Insights<\/p>\n
Voluntary surveys, by their nature, carry inherent biases. Completing a survey requires time and<\/p>\n
effort, and participation is typically motivated by specific experiences. Those most likely to<\/p>\n
respond are individuals who wish to express concerns or suggest improvements, followed by<\/p>\n
those who have had positive experiences and wish to encourage continuation of successful<\/p>\n
practices. The least likely to respond, often the largest segment, are those with limited<\/p>\n
interaction or neutral experiences. As a result, voluntary surveys can exhibit a bias toward more<\/p>\n
polarized feedback.<\/p>\n
The most statistically reliable method to represent an entire population is a random sample<\/p>\n
survey with complete responses from all selected participants. For instance, the quality of a<\/p>\n
production line can be accurately assessed by analyzing a random sample of manufactured<\/p>\n
items. However, conducting such a survey within a human population is significantly more<\/p>\n
complex. It requires extensive resources, including repeated follow-ups via phone and in<\/p>\n
person, to ensure responses are obtained from every sample member. Without full<\/p>\n
participation, even a random sample survey would face the same voluntary response biases.<\/p>\n
Given the goals of improving operations at VMS, voluntary surveys remain a practical and<\/p>\n
valuable tool. While they may not fully represent the entire population at a single point in time,<\/p>\n
they provide meaningful insights into areas requiring attention and highlight successful<\/p>\n
practices. Moreover, when conducted periodically, trends from successive voluntary surveys<\/p>\n
can effectively reflect whether the organization is progressing or facing setbacks.
\nResponse<\/p>\n
Summary of surveys submitted:<\/p>\n
% of Total<\/p>\n
Mutual _|<\/p>\n
Third<\/p>\n
United<\/p>\n
243<\/p>\n
Mutual 50<\/p>\n
Subtotal<\/p>\n
93.2%<\/p>\n
Invalid ID#<\/p>\n
4.6%<\/p>\n
Duplications<\/p>\n
2.2%<\/p>\n
Total<\/p>\n
100.0%<\/p>\n
The overall survey response rate was 3.0%, which may have been influenced by the<\/p>\n
requirement for respondents to provide a valid resident ID number. While this measure ensures<\/p>\n
the integrity of the survey\u2014by confirming residency and preventing duplicate submissions \u2014it<\/p>\n
also poses a challenge, as survey respondents often prefer to remain anonymous.<\/p>\n
As a result of the identification requirement, 6.8% of all submissions were rejected due to<\/p>\n
invalid or missing IDs.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that a low response rate is not inherently negative and may even<\/p>\n
indicate positive outcomes. A detailed explanation of this perspective can be found in the<\/p>\n
following resource: Why Low Response Rates Can Be a Positive Indicator.<\/p>\n
Promotion and Accessibility<\/p>\n
The survey was conducted from November 12 to 30, 2024, and was available for completion<\/p>\n
either online or through a computer-readable paper form. Flyers, with attached paper forms,<\/p>\n
were prominently posted in high-traffic areas, including:<\/p>\n
Community Center lobby<\/p>\n
Village Library<\/p>\n
Clubhouse 1 Drop-In Lounge<\/p>\n
The Towers lobby<\/p>\n
Literature racks at Clubhouses 3, 4, 5, and 7<\/p>\n
Village buses<\/p>\n
To ensure accessibility, over 800 paper surveys were printed and distributed.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the survey was promoted through multiple communication channels:<\/p>\n
\u00b0<\/p>\n
Four consecutive issues of \u201cWhat\u2019s Up in the Village\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00b0<\/p>\n
The November\/December issue of the \u201cVillage Breeze\u201d<\/p>\n
Further support was enlisted from leadership within the community. The presidents of GRF and<\/p>\n
the housing mutuals were encouraged to promote participation among their members, as were<\/p>\n
all club presidents.
\nSatisfaction by Length of Residency<\/p>\n
Satisfaction & Response Rate by Residency Length<\/p>\n
5.0<\/p>\n
5.0%<\/p>\n
4.5<\/p>\n
4.0%<\/p>\n
o 4.0<\/p>\n
\u00a3 3.5<\/p>\n
3.0%<\/p>\n
3.0<\/p>\n
2.0%<\/p>\n
& 25<\/p>\n
$20<\/p>\n
1.0%<\/p>\n
< 1s\n\n1.0\n\nHit\n\n0.0%\n\nUnder 1 yr.\n\n1to3yrs.\n\n4 to 6 yrs.\n\n7-10 yrs.\n\n10+ yrs.\n\nIE Avg. Overall Satisfaction\n\nResponse Rate\n\nThe above-average satisfaction score of 3.5 highlights an opportunity for further improvement\n\ntoward achieving the goal of exceptional service. This survey provides valuable insights to guide\n\nthose efforts.\n\nSatisfaction trends based on residency length suggest an opportunity to better engage with\n\nlong-term residents. Lower satisfaction levels among this group may stem from evolving\n\nexpectations or comparisons to previous service standards.\n\nOverall Satisfaction\n\nOverall Satisfaction by Mutual\n\n5.0\n\n45\n\n4.0\n\n35\n\n3.5\n\n35\n\n3.5\n\n34\n\n3.0\n\n25\n\n2.0\n\n15\n\n1.0\n\n1111\n\nThird\n\nUnited\n\nMutual 50\n\nTotal\n\nResidents in all housing mutuals demonstrate similar satisfaction levels.\nSatisfaction by Function\n\nAverage Satisfaction by Function\n\n5.0\n\n4.5\n\n4.0\n\n3.4\n\n35\n\n30\n\n25\n\n20\n\n15\n\n|\n\n10\n\nJ\n\n11\n\nxd\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&\n\nQ&S\n\nR\n\n3\n\noF\n\n&\n\nof\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&K\n\nSl\n\nPN\n\n&\n\nkd\n\n[\n\nN\n\n\u00ab\n\n&\n\nBO\n\nEd\n\nFunctional areas most in need of improvement are Landscaping and Building Maintenance\n\nTransportation Satisfaction\n\nTransportation Satisfaction & User Percentage\n\n5.0\n\n12.0%\n\n4.5\n\n4.1\n\n4.0\n\n3.9\n\n3.9\n\n10.0%\n\n4.0\n\n3.6\n\n3.5\n\n8.0%\n\n3.0\n\n6.0%\n\nES\n\n25\n\n.0%\n\n2.0\n\n2.0%\n\n15\n\n1.0\n\n0.0%\n\nBuses\n\nBoost\n\nJourney,\n\nJourney,\n\nDest.\n\nMedical\n\nNon-Medical\n\nShopping\n\nmmm Average Satisfaction\n\n= User % of Total\nCommunication Satisfaction\n\nCommunication Satisfaction by Mutual\n\n5.0\n\n45\n\n4.0\n\n35\n\n3.0\n\n25\n\n20\n\n15\n\n1.0\n\n11\n\nThird\n\nUnited\n\nMutual 50\n\nTotal\n\nReliance on Communication Channel by Mutual\n\n5.0\n\n45\n\n4.0\n\n3\n\n35\n\n3.0\n\n25\n\n20\n\n15\n\n1.0\n\n|\n\n|\n\n|\n\nHii)\n\nli\n\nI\n\n1]\n\ni Ii\n\n&\n\n\u00a9\n\no\u00b0\n\nNO\n\n&\n\nNd\n\n@\n\nre\n\n52\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&@\n\nKS\n\n\u00b0\n\n&\n\nfo\n\n\u00b0\n\nEThird mUnited \u00aeMutual50 m Overall\n\nVillage residents primarily rely on email, the \u201cVillage Breeze\u201d and the \u201cLaguna Woods Globe\u201d\n\nfor information. These channels should continue to be prioritized in communication strategies.\nWeb vs. Paper\n\nResponse Web vs. Paper Survey\n\n88%\n\n= Web Survey\n\n= Paper Survey\n\nOut of more than 800 distributed, 76 hard-copy surveys were returned.\n\nOverall Satisfaction: Web vs. Paper\n\n5.0\n\n45\n\n4.0\n\n35\n\n3.0\n\n25\n\n20\n\n15\n\n1.0\n\n111\n\nWeb\n\nPaper\n\nAll Residents\n\nThere is little difference in satisfaction levels between web and paper respondents\nSatisfaction by Function\n\n5.0\n\n45\n\n4.0\n\n35\n\n3.0\n\n25\n\n2.0\n\n15\n\n10\n\nINIT:\n\nI\n\n.\n\n<\n\n<8\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&\n\n&\n\nRS\n\n&\n\n&\n\n\u00a9\n\n&\n\nCO\n\n&\n\nKX\n\nRL\n\n><\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
ES<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
Na<\/p>\n
&\u00b0<\/p>\n
\u00a9<\/p>\n
[4<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
KR<\/p>\n
EWeb MB Paper HOverall<\/p>\n
Security and Maintenance have small differences between web and paper respondents<\/p>\n
Communication Satisfaction: Web vs. Paper<\/p>\n
5.0<\/p>\n
45<\/p>\n
4.0<\/p>\n
3.5<\/p>\n
3.0<\/p>\n
25<\/p>\n
2.0<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
1.0<\/p>\n
111<\/p>\n
Web<\/p>\n
Paper<\/p>\n
All Residents<\/p>\n
There is little difference in satisfaction levels between web and paper respondents.
\nReliance on Communication Channel by Web vs. Paper<\/p>\n
5.0<\/p>\n
45<\/p>\n
4.0<\/p>\n
35<\/p>\n
3.0<\/p>\n
25<\/p>\n
20<\/p>\n
1.5<\/p>\n
1.0<\/p>\n
I I I iil i li i<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
rd<\/p>\n
o<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
oo<\/p>\n
5<\/p>\n
\u00a9<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&@<\/p>\n
RK<\/p>\n
Nd<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
RR<\/p>\n
><\/p>\n