2015 Research Report - Local Government · J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Research Report Background and objectives ... the highest rated individual service areas are

LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey

2015 Research Report

Coordinated by THE department of ENVIRONMENT, Land, water and planning on behalf of Victorian councils

2

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Research Report

Background and objectives Survey methodology and sampling Further information Key findings & recommendations Summary of findings Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance• Key core measure: Customer service• Key core measure: Council direction indicators• Positives and areas for improvement• Communications• Individual service areas• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Further project information

Contents

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey research report.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. This coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would be possible if councils commissioned surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional and participating councils have a range of choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of Victorian councils across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

Background and objectives

4


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in participating councils.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of councils as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within councils, particularly younger people.

A total of n=28,316 completed interviews were achieved State-wide. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2015.

The 2015 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below: • 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=29,501 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of each council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

Survey methodology and sampling

5


SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below: The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2014. Therefore in the example below: The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved among

this group in 2014.

54

57

60

65

50-64

35-49

Overall

18-34

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: For details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences, please refer to Appendix A.

6


Further InformationFurther information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix A, including: Background and objectives Margins of error Analysis and reporting Glossary of terms

ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

Further information

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

8


Key findings and recommendations

Across Victoria, the majority of core measures in 2015 are remarkably consistent with previous trends particularly for the 2012-2013 period. This suggests a generally stable trend in results over time.

For core measures: overall performance, community consultation and engagement, advocacy, council direction, and sealed local roads, results in 2015 are generally on par with the previous trend.

Across the State, the highest rated individual service areas are art centres and libraries (73), the appearance of public areas (72), and waste management (72) which all achieved very positive results relative to other service areas .

On an unprompted basis, residents list the best things about their local council as their parks and gardens, sporting and recreational facilities, and customer service.

9



Overall contact with council has not changed since 2014, with 61% of Victorians having had at least some contact with their local council over the past 12 months. This has been generally consistent since 2012. Residents aged 35-49 year olds and also residents in Small Rural council areas have the

highest levels of contact, while 18-34 year olds and residents of Interface councils have the lowest level of contact.

Significantly fewer residents are contacting their council by telephone, in writing, by email or via their website while a significantly higher proportion are opting to contact their council in person in 2015. A greater level of contact by social media and SMS was also recorded, albeit from a very small base.

10



The trend on council direction between 2012-2015 is stable and the State-wide result is unchanged over the last 12 months. A one point increase in the rating on council direction among 18-34 year olds was offset by an equivalent decrease among people aged over 65. More than two-thirds of residents (69%) believe that their council is broadly headed in the

right direction. Metropolitan councils assign the strongest positive ratings on this measure, while councils in the Interface group are generally weaker in their assessment of direction.

Fewer residents than ever are willing to consider a rate rise to improve services, with more wanting service cuts to ensure that their rates are not increased.

A council newsletter sent by mail remains the preferred channel for Victorian councils to communicate with their residents. This is true for residents of all ages but is especially apparent for those aged over 50 years,

who prefer mailed newsletters well ahead of all other options. There was a significant increase in the proportion of people over 50 years who prefer

information via a newsletter insert in a local newspaper.

11



State-wide performance on condition of sealed local roads is unchanged over the last 12 months. Residents aged 18-34 years have rated councils significantly slightly lower on this issue but not enough to affect the State-wide score for this measure. As may be expected, there is a wide variance between different council groups’ ratings on this

issue. The State-wide score for all councils is 55, however the average score for Metropolitan councils is much higher at 69 and Large Rural councils average score is much lower at 45.

The 2015 State-wide aggregate index score for overall performance supports the overall stable trend between 2012-2015. A small but nevertheless significant one point decrease was evident when compared with 2014 . The lower result in 2015 can be attributed to significant falls in the overall performance ratings

from 18-34 year olds, people aged 65 years and older and also women. These demographic groups are driving decreased ratings across several of the core measures

and individual service areas as well.

12



Customer Service achieved the highest rating (70) compared to all other core measures, although a fall of two points over the last 12 months was noted, which represents a statistically significant drop in performance. The weaker result in 2015 has again been driven by declines in the average performance

rating from 18-34 year olds, women, over 65s and men. The most satisfied residents have been those that made contact with council in person or via

council websites. Victorians who have contacted their council by telephone are significantly less satisfied with

the service received over the last 12 months.

The State-wide assessment of community consultation and engagement is down by one point when compared with 2014, which is a statistically significant decline. This is the first time that the State-wide result has fallen on this measure since 2012. All demographic groups have recorded a lower rating on this measure compared to 2014. In 2015, Metropolitan councils perform significantly better on this issue than other council

groups, while Large Rural councils and Regional Centres score significantly lower.

13



The State-wide spike in performance on advocacy that was achieved in 2014 has not been maintained in 2015 although the general trend over 2012-13 has been continued. The significant decline in performance on this issue in 2015 was driven by women and those

aged 18-49. Metropolitan and Small Rural councils rate significantly better on this issue than the State-wide

average, while Large Rurals again score significantly lower.

Making decisions in the interest of the community was introduced as a core measure across all councils in 2015. It was an optional question for councils in 2014 and there has been a two point drop in rating over this time. The weaker performance was evident among all demographic groups except those aged 50-

64, although 50-64 year olds on average still provide the least favourable ratings of council performance on this issue.

Metropolitan councils do best on this issue, while Regional Centres and Large Rural councils have the weakest performance.

14



The areas that attracted the most attention, without prompting, for areas for improvement are sealed road maintenance, community consultation, and communication.

When it comes to both core measures and individual service areas the segments most favourably disposed towards their local councils tend to be 18-34 year olds and Metropolitan councils.

By contrast, 50-64 year olds and Victorians who reside in Large Rural councils are the least favourable in their assessments, frequently rating their councils significantly below the State-wide average across a range of measures.

By far the lowest rated service is unsealed road maintenance with an index score of 45. Councils also score relatively lower results on the interrelated issues of town planning policy,

planning and building permits, and planning for population growth (all rated 54), although planning and building permits recorded a significant improvement in the performance rating in 2015.

15



The most important individual service areas for councils to target if they wish to improve their overall performance are those where residents’ stated importance of the service exceeds their rating of council’s performance by 10 points or more, including: Maintenance of unsealed roads Making decisions in the interest of the community Planning for population growth Maintenance of sealed roads Condition of local streets & footpaths Consultation & engagement Town planning policy Slashing & weed control Planning permits Lobbying on behalf of the community Informing the community Parking facilities Traffic management Disadvantaged support services Elderly support services Emergency & disaster management

16



Further, for councils who are looking to improve their performance ratings, we recommend focusing on issues and services that are most important to residents. For example, the Large Rural group consistently receive lower performance ratings on most measures. To improve performance perceptions among their residents they should concentrate actions and communications in the areas that residents rate as most important, including: Consultation and engagement Advocacy Sealed road maintenance Informing the community Planning for population growth Business and community development Tourism

Councils should also be aware of which services residents use most often, as personal experience of a service does have an effect on ratings of performance. Most used services include waste management, parking facilities, public areas, streets and footpaths, sealed and unsealed roads, recreational facilities and art centres and libraries.

17



Across the State, some issues have risen in importance in 2015. To maintain or improve results in these areas in 2016, we recommend councils pay close attention to these increased importance service areas, including making decisions in the interest of the community, family support services, disadvantaged support services, traffic management and the enforcement of local laws.

An approach we have recommended to councils is to further mine the survey data to better understand the profile of these over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and data interrogation, or self-mining the SPSS data provided or via the dashboard portal available to the council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended responses are generic summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses, with a view to the responses of the key gender and age groups, especially any target groups identified.

Please note that due to the changes in how councils are categorised, this year we are not able to make comparisons between council groupings over time.

18



• Planning and building permitsHigher results in 2015

• Customer service• Decisions made in interest of the community• Art centres and libraries• Disadvantaged support services• Business and community development

Lower results in 2015

• 18-34 year olds• Metropolitan residents

Most favourably disposed towards Council

• 50-64 year olds• Large Rural residents

Least favourably disposed towards

Council

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

20


2015 Summary of core measuresIndex Score Results

Performance Measures Overall2012

Overall2013

Overall2014

Overall2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 60 60 61 60

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

57 57 57 56

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 55 55 56 55

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

n/a n/a 57 55

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) n/a n/a 55 55

CUSTOMER SERVICE 71 71 72 70

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 53 53 53

21


2015 Summary of core measuresdetailed analysis

Performance Measures Overall 2015 vs Overall2014 Highest score Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 60 1 point lower Metropolitan Large rural

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

56 1 point lower 18-34 year olds

Regional centres

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 55 1 point lower Metropolitan Large rural

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

55 2 points lower Metropolitan Regional centres

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 55 Equal Metropolitan Large rural

CUSTOMER SERVICE 70 2 points lower Metropolitan Large rural

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 53 Equal 18-34 year

olds Large rural

22


2015 Summary of Key Community SatisfactionPercentage Results

10

7

6

7

11

31

39

31

26

31

33

37

35

32

32

33

29

17

10

14

12

14

16

8

4

6

4

6

10

6

1

9

20

2

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Key Measures Summary Results

20 63 13 5Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

23


2015 personal and household use and experience of council services Percentage results

Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?Base: All respondents. Maximum number of councils asked per service area State-wide: 16

8685

807575

7165

6460

5946

2827

252424

2119

1818

171515

1313

8

8382

787473

6557

6358

5543

242223

212120

1617

1415

1210

1111

5

Waste managementParking facilities

The appearance of public areasThe condition of local streets and footpaths

Condition of sealed local roadsRecreational facilitiesArt centres & libraries

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaTraffic management

Informing the communityCommunity & cultural activities

Decisions made in the interest of the communityEnvironmental sustainability

Business & community development & tourismCommunity consultation and engagement

Enforcement of local lawsBusiness & community development

Council’s general town planning policyTourism development

Planning and building permitsPlanning for population growth

Family support servicesElderly support services

Lobbying on behalf of the communityEmergency & disaster management

Disadvantaged support services

Total household usePersonal use

%

Experience of Services

24


Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is necessary:

Individual Service Area Summaryimportance Vs performance

Service Importance Performance Net differential

Maintenance of unsealed roads 78 45 -33

Making decisions in the interest of the community 80 55 -25

Planning for population growth 75 54 -21

Maintenance of sealed roads 76 55 -21

Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 58 -19

Consultation & engagement 74 56 -18

Town planning policy 72 54 -18

Slashing & weed control 73 55 -18

Planning permits 71 54 -17

Lobbying on behalf of the community 69 55 -14

Informing the community 75 61 -14

Parking facilities 70 57 -13

Traffic management 71 60 -11

Disadvantaged support services 73 62 -11

Elderly support services 79 69 -10

Emergency & disaster management 80 70 -10

25


2015 Importance summary

Base: All respondents Maximum number of councils asked per service area State-wide: 55Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

807979797877777575747272737375727270707170706967666562

80n/a79798178n/a757573737374727472737271717170n/a6766n/a62

80n/a80788077n/a757573737373717172727370717170n/a6666n/a62

2014 2013 20122015 Priority Area Importance8080

7979

7877

767575

747373737373

7272

717171

706969

676565

62

Emergency & disaster mngtCommunity decisions

Elderly support servicesWaste management

Unsealed roadsLocal streets & footpaths

Sealed roadsInforming the community

Population growthConsultation & engagement

Family support servicesDisadvantaged support serv.

Appearance of public areasEnvironmental sustainability

Slashing & weed controlRecreational facilitiesTown planning policy

Traffic managementEnforcement of local laws

Planning permitsParking facilities

LobbyingBusiness & community dev.

Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural

26


2015 Performance summary

757273717170706866646464626260625857575655575555535445

73717170706969676564n/a62616260n/a5857575556n/an/a55555444

73717270706968676564n/a63606258n/a5756575561n/an/a54545246

2014 2013 2012

737272

7070

6969

6766

6463

626161

6060

5857

5655555555

545454

45

Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas

Waste managementRecreational facilities

Emergency & disaster mngtElderly support services

Community & culturalFamily support services

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Tourism developmentDisadvantaged support serv.

Informing the communityBus/community dev./tourism

Traffic managementBusiness & community dev.

Local streets & footpathsParking facilities

Consultation & engagementLobbying

Slashing & weed controlCommunity decisions

Sealed roadsTown planning policy

Planning permitsPopulation growth

Unsealed roads

Base: All respondents Maximum number of councils asked per service area State-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

2015 Priority Area Performance

27


2015 Importance summary by council group

Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)

Overall

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Community decisions

3. Waste management

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Elderly support services

Interface


2. Waste management

3. Local streets & footpaths

Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural


2. Unsealed roads3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural




Bottom Three Most Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)

Overall

1. Community & cultural

2. Tourism development

3. Art centres & libraries

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community dev./tourism


3. Slashing & weed control

Interface



3. Bus/community dev./tourism

Regional Centres




Large Rural



3. Parking facilities

Small Rural

1. Traffic management



28


2015 PERFORMANCE summary by council group

Top Three Most Performance Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)

Bottom Three Most Performance Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)

Overall


2. Waste management

3. Appearance of public areas

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Recreational facilities

Interface

1. Waste management



Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural




Small Rural



3. Waste management

Overall

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Town planning

policy

Metropolitan

1. Planning permits

2. Population growth

3. Town planning policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Slashing &

weed control

Regional Centres

1. Unsealed roads2. Community

decisions3. Parking facilities

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Population

growth

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Slashing &

weed control 3. Sealed roads

29

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – State-wide

Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 74 56Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 55

Making community decisions 80 55Condition of sealed local roads 76 55

Informing the community 75 61Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 58

Traffic management 71 60Parking facilities 70 57Enforcement of local laws 71 66Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 79 69Disadvantaged support services 73 62

Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 73 72Art centres & libraries 65 73Community & cultural activities 62 69

Waste management 79 72Business & community development & tourism 67 61

Town planning policy 72 54Planning permits 71 54Environmental sustainability 73 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70

Planning for pop. growth 75 54Slashing & weed control 73 55Maintenance of unsealed roads 78 45

Business & community dev. 69 60Tourism development 65 63

0

50

100

0 50 100

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

30

J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – State-wide

Importance and Performance2015 Index Scores Grid

(Magnified view)

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

40

90

40 90

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 74 56Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 55

Making community decisions 80 55Condition of sealed local roads 76 55

Informing the community 75 61Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 58

Traffic management 71 60Parking facilities 70 57Enforcement of local laws 71 66Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 79 69Disadvantaged support services 73 62

Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 73 72Art centres & libraries 65 73Community & cultural activities 62 69

Waste management 79 72Business & community development & tourism 67 61

Town planning policy 72 54Planning permits 71 54Environmental sustainability 73 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70

Planning for pop. growth 75 54Slashing & weed control 73 55Maintenance of unsealed roads 78 45

Business & community dev. 69 60Tourism development 65 63

31


Positives and Areas for Improvement Summary

BES

T TH

ING

SAR

EAS FOR

IMPR

OVEM

ENT

-Parks and gardens-Recreational and sporting facilities-Customer service-Councillors-Public areas

-Sealed road maintenance-Community consultation-Communication

32


Communications Summary

• Newsletter sent via mail (39%)Overall preferred forms of communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (42%)Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (35%)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s

DETAILED FINDINGS

KEY CORE MEASUREOVERALL PERFORMANCE

35


Overall performanceindex scores

2015 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

n/a

65

n/a

62

62

61

n/a

60

59

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

60

59

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

n/a

2014 2013 2012

67

64

62

61

61

60

59

59

59

58

57

56

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

50-64

Large Rural

36


Overall performancedetailed percentages

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents Councils asked State-wide: 69

10

11

10

9

14

10

8

8

9

9

11

10

8

8

13

39

40

40

40

48

41

36

34

38

39

40

48

38

34

36

35

35

35

36

28

34

38

40

37

35

36

31

37

38

36

10

9

10

9

6

8

11

12

10

10

9

7

10

12

10

4

4

4

4

2

4

5

6

4

5

4

2

5

6

4

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Can't say

2015 Overall Performance

KEY CORE MEASURE CUSTOMER SERVICE

38


Contact last 12 months summary

• 61%, equivalent to 2014 Overall contact with Overall

• Aged 35-49 years• Small Rural residentsMost contact with Overall

• Aged 18-34 years• Interface residentsLeast contact with Overall

• Index score of 70, down 2 points on 2014 Customer Service rating

• Metropolitan residents Most satisfied with Customer Service

• Large Rural residents Least satisfied with Customer Service

39


61

39

60

40

61

39

61

39

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

2014 2013 2012

2015 contact with councillast 12 months

Q5/5a. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Method of Contact

%

40


39

30

16

15

12

2

1

37

29

16

14

11

2

1

36

34

18

13

12

1

1

35

32

14

13

9

3

2

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By text message

2015 contact with council last 12 months DETAILED PERCENTAGES INCLUDING METHOD OF CONTACT

Q5a. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Council in any of the following ways? In person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Method of Contact

%

41


44

28

11

10

5

2

0

42

29

12

9

6

1

0

38

34

12

9

6

1

0

40

33

10

10

5

2

*

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By text message

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL MOST RECENT methodDETAILED PERCENTAGES

2014 2013 20122015 Most Recent Contact

%

42


n/a

n/a

73

74

n/a

72

n/a

71

70

71

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

74

n/a

71

n/a

71

70

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

74

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

70

69

n/a

73

72

72

72

71

70

70

70

70

69

68

67

Metropolitan

Interface

Women

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 contact customer serviceindex scores

2015 Customer Service Rating 2014 2013 2012

43


31

32

31

31

34

33

31

27

32

28

34

26

30

31

36

37

38

38

37

38

37

38

37

36

38

36

39

39

37

34

17

16

17

17

14

17

17

18

18

18

16

18

16

17

16

8

7

7

8

7

7

7

9

8

8

7

8

8

8

8

6

5

5

5

5

5

6

7

6

7

5

6

6

6

5

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 contact customer servicedetailed percentages

2015 Customer Service Rating

44


75

77

69

70

74

73

82

72

74

68

68

73

75

61

73

75

69

73

75

79

68

73

77

66

68

75

66

79*

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By text message

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 contact customer service INDEX scores by method of last contact

2014 2013 20122015 Customer Service Rating

45


35

42

22

31

28

16

49

36

35

39

35

48

47

34

16

13

18

16

16

19

7

5

7

9

2

10

17

4

4

7

8

3

4

1

1

5

1

3

4

By telephone

In person

In writing

By email

Via website

By social media

By text message*


2015 CONTACT Customer servicedetailed percentages by method of last contact

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 16*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 Customer Service Rating

KEY CORE MEASURE COUNCIL DIRECTION INDICATORS

47


Council Direction Summary

• 63% stayed about the same, equal points on 2014• 20% improved, equal points on 2014• 13% deteriorated, equal points on 2014

Council Direction over last 12 months

• Aged 18-34 years• Metropolitan residents

Most satisfied with Council Direction

• Large Rural residents• Aged 35-64 years

Least satisfied with Council Direction

• 47% ‘a lot’ of room for improvement• 44% ‘a little’ room for improvement• 8% not much / no room for improvement

Room for improvement

• 69% right direction (20% definitely)• 20% wrong direction (10% definitely)Direction Councils are headed

48


57

n/a

55

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

54

52

n/a

51

50

57

n/a

54

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

55

52

n/a

51

50

56

n/a

52

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

53

51

n/a

49

48

58

56

55

54

53

53

53

53

52

51

51

51

18-34

Metropolitan

Women

Interface

Overall

Regional Centres

Small Rural

65+

Men

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 overall COUNCIL direction last 12 monthsINDEX SCORES

2015 Overall Direction 2014 2013 2012

49


20

20

19

18

20

19

23

18

20

19

20

23

17

18

20

63

63

63

64

66

66

57

63

61

63

62

65

65

62

60

13

13

13

15

8

10

17

15

15

15

12

8

14

16

14

5

5

5

4

6

5

3

4

4

4

5

5

4

4

6

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2015 overall council direction last 12 monthsdetailed percentages

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 Overall Direction

50


47

41

46

47

34

60

50

46

48

39

49

53

48

44

50

46

45

51

35

42

43

44

52

41

41

40

7

5

5

5

10

4

6

8

5

7

7

4

7

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in council's overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 8

2015 room for improvement in servicesdetailed percentages

2015 Room for Improvement

51


20

21

19

18

23

14

17

19

21

19

21

21

20

18

22

49

52

50

49

48

48

50

53

44

48

50

53

50

47

46

10

9

10

11

8

10

13

9

12

10

10

10

10

12

9

10

8

10

12

8

15

11

9

12

13

8

7

12

13

10

11

10

10

10

12

12

9

9

11

10

11

9

8

11

14

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 12

2015 right/wrong directiondetailed percentages

2015 Future Direction

52


10

11

11

11

12

9

12

8

10

11

10

12

10

10

9

23

25

25

29

24

22

24

21

23

23

23

27

22

23

20

22

24

22

22

22

22

22

23

22

21

23

26

24

19

21

26

23

24

22

25

25

24

28

27

28

25

21

26

28

30

18

17

18

16

18

22

18

19

18

17

19

15

17

20

21

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25

2015 rates/service trade offdetailed percentages

2015 Rate Rise v Service Cut

POSITIVES AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

54


10

9

9

6

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

5

8

Sealed road maintenance

Community consultation

Communication

Inappropriate development

Parking availability

Traffic management

Financial management

Rates too expensive

Unsealed road maintenance

Waste management

Footpaths and walking tracks

Don't know

Nothing

12

10

9

8

7

6

6

5

5

6

6

Parks and gardens

Recreational and sportingfacilities

Customer service

Councillors

Public areas

Community facilities

Generally good overall

Waste management

Community activities and publicevents

Road and street maintenance

Nothing

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 19 Q17. What does council MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 best things about Council detailed percentages 2015 services to improve detailed percentages

2015 Best Aspects 2015 Areas for Improvement

% %

COMMUNICATIONS

56


2015 best forms of communication

Q13. If council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

39

21

17

14

3

2

2

1

39

19

18

15

3

2

2

1

42

18

18

15

2

2

2

1

2014 2013 20122015 Best Form

39

22

16

15

3

2

3

1

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent viaemail

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insertin a local newspaper

A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

%

57


2015 best forms of communication: under 50S

Q13. If council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

36

24

16

14

5

2

3

0

37

21

19

14

5

2

3

0

39

21

18

14

3

3

2

1

2014 2013 20122015 Under 50s Best Form

35

25

15

13

5

3

3

0





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

%

58


2015 best forms of communication: over 50S

Q13. If council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

43

18

15

18

1

1

2

1

42

17

17

18

1

1

2

1

46

15

16

18

1

1

2

1

2014 2013 20122015 Over 50s Best Form

42

18

18

17

2

1

2

1





The council website

A text message

Other

Can't say

%

INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AREAS

60


77

n/a

76

76

n/a

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

68

77

n/a

75

74

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

67

77

n/a

75

75

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

68

78

76

76

76

75

75

74

74

72

72

72

68

50-64

Small Rural

Women

35-49

Large Rural

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Interface

Men

18-34

2015 Community Consultation and Engagementimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Consultation Importance

61


29

28

27

27

24

24

31

32

33

26

32

21

33

37

28

42

41

43

43

44

44

39

42

40

42

42

39

41

41

46

24

25

25

25

27

25

25

22

22

26

22

33

22

18

20

3

4

4

4

4

5

4

3

2

4

3

6

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%

Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 Community Consultation and Engagement importance detailed percentages

2015 Consultation Importance

62


60

n/a

n/a

58

57

n/a

58

n/a

56

56

n/a

54

60

n/a

n/a

58

57

n/a

58

n/a

56

56

n/a

54

60

n/a

n/a

58

57

n/a

58

n/a

56

55

n/a

54

59

58

57

57

56

56

56

54

54

54

53

53

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Women

Overall

Small Rural

65+

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

50-64

2015 Community Consultation and Engagementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Consultation Performance 2014 2013 2012

63


7

8

8

8

8

7

6

7

8

7

8

7

6

7

9

31

32

32

33

32

31

28

30

33

30

32

35

32

28

30

32

32

34

33

31

32

36

32

31

32

32

33

32

34

29

14

13

13

13

12

13

16

16

14

15

14

11

16

17

14

6

5

5

5

4

4

6

7

6

6

5

4

6

7

6

9

9

9

8

13

13

8

8

8

9

10

10

8

8

12

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Community Consultation and Engagement performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community Consultation and Engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 Consultation Performance

64


n/a

73

72

n/a

71

70

n/a

n/a

67

69

n/a

67

n/a

73

71

n/a

71

70

n/a

n/a

68

69

n/a

66

n/a

73

72

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

68

68

n/a

67

72

72

71

70

70

69

68

68

68

68

67

66

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Large Rural

35-49

Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

Metropolitan

Men

2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Communityimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Lobbying Importance

65


23

23

23

23

20

22

22

24

28

19

26

21

25

26

20

39

40

40

41

39

38

39

39

38

37

40

36

38

39

42

28

27

27

27

29

28

29

27

27

30

26

33

27

25

27

6

6

6

6

8

7

6

6

4

8

4

7

7

6

5

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Community importance detailed percentages

2015 Lobbying Importance

66


n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

57

56

n/a

55

n/a

54

53

n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

56

55

n/a

55

n/a

53

52

n/a

60

57

n/a

n/a

56

55

n/a

55

n/a

53

52

58

58

57

56

56

56

55

55

55

53

53

53

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Interface

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Communityperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Lobbying Performance 2014 2013 2012

67


6

6

6

6

6

5

6

5

7

5

6

5

5

5

7

26

27

26

27

27

28

27

24

28

27

26

33

25

23

24

32

32

33

33

29

29

36

34

30

32

31

32

33

33

29

12

11

12

12

9

11

13

14

11

12

11

9

13

14

11

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

5

5

5

4

3

6

5

4

20

19

18

17

26

23

14

18

19

19

21

17

19

19

25

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Lobbying on Behalf of the Community performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on Behalf of the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 Lobbying Performance

68


n/a

81

81

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

82

81

80

80

80

80

80

79

78

78

77

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

35-49

65+

Interface

18-34

Men

2015 Decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Decisions Importance

69


38

37

37

36

41

40

44

35

41

38

41

43

34

42

43

45

42

37

40

40

42

43

42

40

41

47

15

16

14

18

17

16

12

18

13

17

15

13

14

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15

2015 Decisions made in the interest of the community importance detailed percentages

2015 Community Decisions Importance

70


n/a

60

n/a

n/a

57

57

58

56

55

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

59

58

56

56

55

55

54

53

52

52

52

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Small Rural

Women

Overall

65+

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

2015 Decisions made in the interest of the communityperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Decisions Performance 2014 2013 2012

71


7

7

7

8

6

5

7

6

7

7

5

5

8

31

33

35

32

28

27

32

31

31

38

30

27

28

33

34

31

32

36

35

33

33

34

31

34

36

33

14

12

10

11

17

16

13

14

13

10

14

16

14

6

5

4

4

7

8

6

7

5

4

7

7

6

9

10

13

12

6

8

8

9

10

9

9

8

11

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 Decisions made in the interest OF THE COMMUNITY performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 Community Decisions Performance

72


n/a

n/a

79

79

78

n/a

n/a

79

77

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

76

75

75

73

Large Rural

Small Rural

Women

50-64

65+

Interface

Regional Centres

35-49

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

18-34

2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Sealed Local Roads Importance

73


32

33

29

36

35

37

34

28

35

29

36

35

30

44

45

46

41

42

42

45

47

42

40

42

45

52

20

18

22

19

20

18

18

21

19

27

19

17

16

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 15

2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance detailed percentages

2015 Sealed Local Roads Importance

74


n/a

n/a

59

56

55

n/a

55

55

54

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

60

57

57

55

55

55

55

53

52

52

45

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

Women

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural

2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your areaperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2014 2013 2012

75


11

12

20

13

12

6

8

11

11

14

10

9

11

33

33

45

38

32

24

32

34

32

35

32

30

34

29

27

24

27

30

30

32

28

29

26

28

31

30

16

17

7

14

17

24

16

16

16

14

18

19

14

10

10

3

7

9

16

11

10

10

10

11

11

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

2015 Sealed Local Roads Performance

76


78

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

71

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

71

78

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

n/a

74

72

78

77

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

73

73

72

Women

50-64

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Overall

35-49

65+

Interface

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

2015 Informing the Communityimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Informing Community Importance

77


30

30

30

31

26

30

34

32

32

26

35

27

32

36

28

44

43

44

44

45

42

41

45

41

43

44

43

42

40

49

22

22

22

21

25

23

20

19

23

25

18

25

22

21

19

3

3

3

4

4

4

3

3

3

4

2

4

4

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the Community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25

2015 Informing the Community importance detailed percentages

2015 Informing Community Importance

78


n/a

63

63

62

62

65

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

62

63

61

60

63

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

61

63

60

58

62

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

64

62

62

61

61

61

60

60

59

58

58

56

Metropolitan

Women

18-34

Overall

35-49

65+

Small Rural

Men

Large Rural

Regional Centres

50-64

Interface

2015 Informing the Communityperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Informing Community Performance 2014 2013 2012

79


12

13

12

12

15

8

10

10

12

11

13

12

12

11

14

38

40

38

38

40

33

34

37

37

38

37

41

38

34

36

31

30

32

31

29

35

35

32

32

31

31

31

32

34

30

12

11

11

13

10

15

15

14

12

13

12

11

12

14

12

4

4

3

4

3

5

5

5

5

5

3

3

4

5

5

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Informing the Community performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the Community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 35

2015 Informing Community Performance

80


79

n/a

78

78

77

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

81

n/a

78

79

78

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

79

n/a

77

79

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

79

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

76

75

75

Women

Interface

35-49

50-64

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2015 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your areaimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

81


34

33

35

32

32

36

34

34

32

29

38

31

36

36

31

43

44

44

46

47

44

44

42

41

44

42

40

43

43

48

19

18

18

18

18

18

19

20

21

22

16

25

18

17

16

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29

2015 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance detailed percentages

2015 Streets and Footpaths Importance

82


n/a

62

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

58

57

n/a

56

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

64

62

59

59

58

58

58

57

57

56

55

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Small Rural

Men

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

Women

65+

Interface

50-64

Large Rural

2015 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your areaperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance 2014 2013 2012

83


13

13

14

13

18

11

13

11

12

13

13

17

12

10

12

34

34

33

34

39

35

34

31

35

36

33

38

36

32

32

28

28

28

28

27

28

30

28

29

27

29

25

28

30

29

15

15

15

15

10

16

15

18

13

14

15

12

15

16

15

7

7

8

9

5

9

7

9

7

7

8

7

7

8

8

3

2

1

1

2

1

4

4

3

3

1

2

3

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40

2015 Streets and Footpaths Performance

84


n/a

73

73

n/a

71

70

69

n/a

n/a

67

69

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

74

72

71

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

74

73

73

n/a

n/a

70

72

n/a

74

73

73

72

72

71

71

68

68

68

68

57

Metropolitan

Women

65+

Regional Centres

50-64

Overall

35-49

Interface

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Small Rural

2015 Traffic Managementimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Traffic Management Importance

85


25

23

26

29

30

20

24

20

11

21

28

21

26

28

25

41

42

42

42

42

38

45

40

32

41

42

39

37

41

48

26

27

25

23

22

32

25

31

32

28

24

30

29

25

21

6

6

5

5

5

7

5

6

22

8

5

9

6

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17

2015 Traffic Management importance detailed percentages

2015 Traffic Management Importance

86


n/a

n/a

63

n/a

60

61

60

n/a

60

59

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

60

60

61

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

58

59

60

n/a

58

55

n/a

56

67

62

62

61

60

60

60

59

59

58

57

57

Small Rural

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

Overall

Women

65+

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Metropolitan

50-64

2015 Traffic Managementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Traffic Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

87


10

10

10

9

9

9

11

9

14

9

10

11

9

8

10

40

40

39

38

37

43

40

39

49

39

40

45

38

36

38

31

30

31

31

32

29

34

30

24

31

30

28

31

33

31

12

12

13

13

14

11

10

12

6

12

12

11

13

13

11

5

5

5

5

6

4

3

5

2

5

4

4

6

6

4

3

3

3

3

3

5

2

5

4

3

4

1

3

4

6

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Traffic Management performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Traffic Management Performance

88


n/a

74

74

n/a

71

70

69

n/a

n/a

67

68

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

73

71

70

n/a

n/a

67

68

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

72

71

70

n/a

n/a

68

68

n/a

74

74

74

72

71

70

70

67

67

67

67

65

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Metropolitan

50-64

Overall

35-49

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

Interface

2015 Parking Facilitiesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Parking Importance

89


24

24

25

24

26

16

28

20

23

20

29

21

24

26

27

41

40

42

42

41

37

44

40

35

38

43

37

39

39

47

27

28

26

27

26

35

23

31

30

32

23

31

30

28

20

6

6

6

6

5

9

3

8

9

8

4

9

6

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Parking Facilities importance detailed percentages

2015 Parking Importance

90


n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

58

57

57

n/a

55

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

57

57

56

n/a

55

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

57

55

56

56

n/a

55

55

n/a

62

60

59

59

58

58

57

56

55

55

55

53

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural

18-34

Men

35-49

Overall

Women

Metropolitan

50-64

65+

Regional Centres

2015 Parking Facilitiesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Parking Performance 2014 2013 2012

91


9

10

9

9

8

8

8

10

12

9

9

10

10

8

9

36

35

36

35

34

45

31

38

42

37

35

40

38

33

32

32

32

33

33

33

28

33

31

28

31

32

31

31

33

32

15

15

14

15

15

13

19

13

10

13

16

12

13

17

17

6

6

6

6

7

4

8

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

7

3

2

3

2

3

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Parking Facilities performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 Parking Performance

92


74

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

71

n/a

70

68

n/a

66

75

n/a

n/a

73

71

n/a

71

n/a

72

70

n/a

68

74

n/a

n/a

71

70

n/a

70

n/a

71

68

n/a

66

74

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

70

68

67

Women

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

65+

Overall

Interface

50-64

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Small Rural

Men

2015 Enforcement of local lawsimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Law Enforcement Importance

93


25

24

27

24

26

27

27

23

23

20

30

25

25

26

24

41

40

40

41

43

39

41

42

37

40

42

40

38

38

46

27

28

26

27

25

25

26

29

31

31

23

27

28

29

24

5

6

6

6

5

7

5

4

7

7

3

6

6

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 25

2015 Enforcement of local laws importance detailed percentages

2015 Law Enforcement Importance

94


69

n/a

67

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

65

64

63

69

n/a

66

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

64

62

69

n/a

67

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

64

64

63

70

67

67

66

66

66

65

65

65

64

64

63

18-34

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural

35-49

Men

65+

50-64

2015 Enforcement of local lawsperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Law Enforcement Performance 2014 2013 2012

95


13

14

13

13

13

14

15

12

14

12

14

17

13

11

12

40

41

40

40

40

37

41

40

40

39

41

47

40

37

35

26

25

25

26

24

26

27

27

26

27

24

23

25

28

27

6

7

7

7

6

7

6

7

6

7

6

4

7

8

7

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

12

11

12

11

14

12

10

11

11

11

13

7

12

13

15

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Enforcement of local laws performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 36

2015 Law Enforcement Performance

96


77

n/a

n/a

74

72

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

72

68

78

n/a

n/a

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

68

78

n/a

n/a

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

73

69

77

75

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

68

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

18-34

Overall

35-49

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Small Rural

50-64

65+

Men

2015 Family Support Servicesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 27Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Family Support Importance

97


28

26

27

27

26

30

31

25

28

21

34

31

30

27

23

42

42

44

44

43

44

42

43

38

41

43

42

41

40

45

23

24

22

22

23

18

21

23

25

28

18

22

23

24

22

5

4

4

4

5

5

4

5

5

7

3

4

5

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 27

2015 Family Support Services importance detailed percentages

2015 Family Support Importance

98


72

n/a

69

68

n/a

n/a

68

69

n/a

n/a

67

66

71

n/a

68

67

n/a

n/a

67

68

n/a

n/a

66

64

70

n/a

67

67

n/a

n/a

66

68

n/a

n/a

65

64

70

68

68

67

67

67

67

67

66

66

66

65

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

2015 Family Support Servicesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Family Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

99


11

12

11

11

10

11

11

10

13

10

12

11

11

8

13

34

33

33

34

32

33

35

36

32

34

33

40

34

29

30

21

20

21

22

19

20

27

22

21

22

20

24

24

22

16

4

4

4

5

3

5

4

4

5

4

4

4

5

4

3

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

29

29

29

26

35

29

20

26

27

29

28

19

24

35

37

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Family Support Services performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 37

2015 Family Support Performance

100


83

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

77

75

83

n/a

n/a

81

80

79

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

77

75

83

n/a

n/a

81

81

80

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

78

76

82

80

80

80

80

79

78

78

78

77

77

75

Women

Regional Centres

Small Rural

50-64

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

35-49

Interface

18-34

Men

2015 Elderly Support Servicesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Elderly Support Importance

101


36

35

36

37

34

34

38

35

39

28

43

32

36

41

36

44

46

45

46

45

45

44

46

42

46

43

44

44

42

46

16

16

15

14

18

17

15

16

16

21

12

20

16

14

14

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29

2015 Elderly Support Services importance detailed percentages

2015 Elderly Support Importance

102


74

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

70

71

69

69

n/a

68

n/a

74

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

69

70

69

67

n/a

67

n/a

73

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

68

69

68

67

n/a

66

n/a

74

72

69

69

69

69

69

67

67

66

66

65

65+

Small Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

50-64

Regional Centres

35-49

Interface

2015 Elderly Support Servicesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Elderly Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

103


15

16

15

15

12

9

14

16

21

13

17

11

10

14

25

34

34

33

34

31

28

35

33

37

35

32

37

30

32

35

19

17

19

20

17

20

25

19

17

19

19

20

20

20

16

4

4

4

5

3

5

6

5

5

4

5

4

5

5

4

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

26

27

28

25

35

37

19

25

19

27

25

27

33

26

19

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Elderly Support Services performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 40

2015 Elderly Support Performance

104


77

n/a

n/a

74

72

72

72

72

n/a

n/a

68

78

n/a

n/a

75

73

72

73

73

n/a

n/a

69

77

n/a

n/a

75

73

72

73

73

n/a

n/a

69

77

74

74

74

73

73

73

73

72

72

69

Women

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

18-34

Overall

35-49

50-64

65+

Interface

Large Rural

Men

2015 Disadvantaged Support Servicesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Disadvantaged Support Importance

105


28

25

27

27

29

24

29

26

21

34

29

28

28

26

42

44

43

43

42

45

42

41

43

42

41

42

42

44

23

23

23

23

22

23

22

24

27

19

23

25

23

21

4

4

4

4

4

6

3

5

6

3

5

5

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13

2015 Disadvantaged Support Services importance detailed percentages

2015 Disadvantaged Support Importance

106


67

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

65

63

65

n/a

n/a

62

61

64

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

64

61

65

n/a

n/a

61

60

66

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

63

63

66

n/a

n/a

60

59

65

63

62

62

62

62

62

62

61

61

61

60

65+

Metropolitan

Overall

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

2015 Disadvantaged Support Servicesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Disadvantaged Support Performance 2014 2013 2012

107


7

8

7

8

6

5

8

7

9

6

7

6

5

6

10

28

28

27

28

27

23

30

29

26

28

27

34

27

23

26

23

22

22

23

21

26

30

22

20

25

22

26

24

24

19

6

5

6

6

4

6

7

7

7

5

7

7

5

6

5

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

35

35

36

34

41

39

23

33

36

34

36

26

37

40

39

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Disadvantaged Support Services performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged Support Services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 17

2015 Disadvantaged Support Performance

108


74

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

70

71

70

75

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

70

71

70

75

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

70

71

70

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

71

71

70

35-49

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

Men

65+

18-34

2015 Recreational Facilitiesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Recreational Facilities Importance

109


23

23

23

22

22

23

24

22

26

22

24

23

28

24

18

46

47

47

49

48

45

43

48

43

45

47

41

47

47

50

26

26

26

25

27

27

28

25

25

28

25

32

22

26

26

3

4

3

3

3

4

4

4

3

4

2

4

3

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational Facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33

2015 Recreational Facilities importance detailed percentages

2015 Recreational Facilities Importance

110


n/a

74

71

n/a

71

n/a

70

71

69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

70

n/a

70

70

69

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

74

70

n/a

70

n/a

69

70

68

n/a

67

n/a

74

73

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

66

Metropolitan

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Women

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

50-64

Interface

35-49

Large Rural

2015 Recreational Facilitiesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance 2014 2013 2012

111


22

23

22

21

27

18

21

18

22

21

23

21

21

20

25

43

44

44

44

46

47

44

41

43

45

42

43

42

44

44

23

21

22

22

20

23

24

25

22

23

22

24

24

24

19

6

6

7

7

3

7

7

8

7

6

7

7

8

6

5

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

2

3

3

3

4

2

2

3

6

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Recreational Facilities performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational Facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 47

2015 Recreational Facilities Performance

112


75

75

75

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

76

75

76

n/a

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

75

74

74

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

71

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

73

73

73

71

70

Women

35-49

50-64

Regional Centres

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2015 The appearance of public areasimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Public Areas Importance

113


24

25

26

23

23

27

27

22

26

21

27

21

27

28

22

47

48

48

49

50

44

46

49

45

46

49

41

48

47

53

25

25

23

25

25

26

25

25

26

29

22

33

23

23

22

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

4

2

2

21

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30

2015 The appearance of public areas importance detailed percentages

2015 Public Areas Importance

114


n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

72

72

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

n/a

71

70

72

71

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

71

n/a

72

70

72

71

70

n/a

n/a

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

71

70

69

67

Small Rural

Metropolitan

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

Women

35-49

65+

Men

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

2015 The appearance of public areasperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Public Areas Performance 2014 2013 2012

115


24

25

24

23

25

17

24

21

29

23

26

26

24

23

25

47

46

46

48

48

47

47

46

46

49

45

48

48

46

46

20

20

22

21

19

25

21

23

16

21

20

18

20

22

20

5

5

6

6

5

7

6

6

4

5

5

5

5

6

5

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 The appearance of public areas performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 42

2015 Public Areas Performance

116


70

n/a

66

68

n/a

66

66

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

62

70

n/a

67

69

n/a

66

67

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

71

n/a

67

68

n/a

66

67

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

70

69

67

67

66

65

65

64

63

63

62

61

Women

Metropolitan

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

18-34

Small Rural

Men

2015 Art Centres and Librariesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

117


16

17

16

17

20

14

17

14

13

12

20

15

18

17

16

40

40

42

42

43

40

40

38

38

36

44

35

41

39

45

33

33

33

33

30

35

33

36

35

37

29

39

32

34

29

8

8

7

7

6

9

8

9

12

11

5

10

7

8

7

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21

2015 Art Centres and Libraries importance detailed percentages

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

118


78

n/a

n/a

77

75

n/a

74

76

n/a

74

73

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

71

n/a

76

75

75

75

73

73

73

73

72

72

71

69

65+

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Interface

Men

50-64

Small Rural

2015 Art Centres and Librariesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 26Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Performance 2014 2013 2012

119


24

27

25

24

25

21

28

23

19

20

27

21

24

21

27

44

44

44

44

47

41

44

44

39

44

44

49

44

41

41

18

17

18

19

16

20

17

18

23

20

17

18

18

22

16

4

3

4

5

3

4

4

4

6

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

8

8

7

8

13

6

10

11

11

7

7

9

10

11

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Art Centres and Libraries performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art Centres and Libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 26

2015 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

120


65

n/a

n/a

62

62

n/a

62

n/a

61

61

n/a

58

65

n/a

n/a

62

62

n/a

61

n/a

62

63

n/a

59

65

n/a

n/a

63

62

n/a

60

n/a

61

62

n/a

58

66

65

63

63

62

62

62

61

61

61

59

58

Women

Small Rural

Regional Centres

18-34

Overall

Metropolitan

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Interface

Men

2015 Community and Cultural Activitiesimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Community Activities Importance

121


11

11

11

11

12

10

12

10

13

8

15

14

10

11

10

37

37

37

37

36

30

39

38

42

34

40

35

38

35

40

40

41

41

39

41

45

39

39

35

42

38

41

41

41

37

10

9

9

10

9

12

8

10

8

13

6

10

9

10

10

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Community and Cultural Activities importance detailed percentages

2015 Community Activities Importance

122


n/a

71

72

71

70

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

69

n/a

n/a

70

71

69

69

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

68

68

n/a

n/a

70

71

68

68

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

67

67

n/a

71

71

71

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

68

65

Metropolitan

Women

65+

35-49

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

18-34

Small Rural

Men

50-64

Interface

2015 Community and Cultural Activitiesperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Community Activities Performance 2014 2013 2012

123


18

18

17

15

21

13

19

16

17

16

21

18

19

17

19

43

44

44

44

41

41

43

46

45

43

44

43

45

43

43

25

24

25

26

24

27

25

24

26

27

23

26

23

26

23

5

5

5

5

4

8

5

5

4

5

5

6

5

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

7

8

8

9

9

10

6

6

5

8

7

6

6

8

10

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Community and Cultural Activities performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and Cultural Activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 Community Activities Performance

124


n/a

80

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

77

77

n/a

81

n/a

81

80

79

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

77

76

n/a

79

n/a

80

79

78

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

77

76

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

77

76

Metropolitan

50-64

Regional Centres

Women

35-49

Overall

Interface

65+

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2015 Waste Managementimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Waste Management Importance

125


35

35

36

32

39

35

37

33

32

32

39

31

39

40

33

46

47

47

49

47

45

45

47

45

48

45

44

44

44

52

16

16

15

16

13

17

16

17

20

18

15

22

15

14

13

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 33

2015 Waste Management importance detailed percentages

2015 Waste Management Importance

126


n/a

75

n/a

74

73

73

72

n/a

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

72

70

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

72

72

72

n/a

n/a

70

69

n/a

77

75

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

70

69

68

Metropolitan

65+

Interface

18-34

Overall

Men

Women

Regional Centres

Small Rural

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

2015 Waste Managementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Waste Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

127


25

26

24

24

32

26

22

21

24

26

24

25

22

23

30

47

47

47

48

49

48

48

44

47

47

47

50

47

45

46

17

16

18

17

13

17

21

19

17

16

18

16

18

19

15

6

5

6

6

3

4

6

8

7

6

6

5

7

7

5

3

3

3

2

1

2

2

5

3

3

3

2

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Waste Management performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 45

2015 Waste Management Performance

128


n/a

n/a

n/a

70

68

68

67

67

65

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

68

67

67

65

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

66

66

66

63

64

n/a

n/a

73

70

70

69

69

68

67

67

65

65

64

59

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Women

50-64

35-49

Overall

65+

Men

18-34

Interface

Metropolitan

2015 Business and community development and tourismimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

129


21

20

20

18

12

14

28

23

25

19

23

18

23

24

18

38

38

39

39

30

39

41

41

40

37

38

35

38

36

42

31

31

31

31

42

33

26

29

25

31

32

37

30

31

28

7

8

8

9

13

10

4

5

6

9

5

9

7

7

7

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 23

2015 Business and community development and tourism importance detailed percentages

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

130


64

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

60

n/a

60

59

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

60

n/a

61

59

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

60

n/a

60

59

64

63

63

63

63

63

62

61

60

59

59

59

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

65+

Metropolitan

Overall

35-49

Large Rural

Men

50-64

2015 Business and community development and tourismperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance 2014 2013 2012

131


11

11

10

10

8

10

14

11

14

10

13

13

10

10

12

34

35

35

35

31

34

36

34

35

32

35

38

34

30

32

31

30

30

31

31

28

31

30

31

32

30

30

32

33

28

10

9

9

9

7

8

9

12

9

11

8

8

10

11

9

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

5

3

4

2

2

4

4

3

12

12

13

12

21

17

7

8

8

12

12

8

10

12

16

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Business and community development and tourism performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 30

2015 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

132


76

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

66

77

74

73

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

66

76

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

66

76

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

70

66

50-64

Women

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2015 Council's general town planning policyimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council's general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Planning Importance

133


25

25

25

25

26

24

26

26

25

24

27

18

29

32

25

41

41

42

42

41

40

40

42

39

40

41

34

40

42

46

25

25

25

24

23

25

26

24

27

27

23

36

24

20

19

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

4

4

5

3

7

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

5

4

4

4

5

4

3

3

3

5

4

3

3

6

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council's general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Council's general town planning policy importance detailed percentages

2015 Planning Importance

134


60

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

55

54

55

n/a

n/a

53

51

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

55

54

55

n/a

n/a

53

50

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

54

53

54

n/a

n/a

52

50

59

55

55

55

55

54

54

54

53

53

53

51

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Men

65+

Large Rural

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

2015 Council's general town planning policyperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Planning Performance 2014 2013 2012

135


5

6

5

5

6

5

6

5

4

6

5

6

4

4

6

28

28

29

29

28

30

29

29

27

28

29

34

29

24

27

31

31

32

32

31

27

34

31

33

32

31

31

31

33

30

12

12

12

14

11

12

12

14

12

13

12

7

13

16

13

6

6

5

6

5

6

5

7

6

7

5

4

7

7

6

17

17

17

15

19

20

14

15

17

14

19

18

15

16

17

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Council's general town planning policy performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council's general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 31

2015 Planning Performance

136


n/a

74

74

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

n/a

74

73

74

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

65

n/a

74

73

74

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

74

74

73

73

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

66

Metropolitan

65+

Women

50-64

35-49

Overall

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Interface

Men

18-34

2015 Planning and Building Permitsimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and Building Permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Planning & Building Permits Importance

137


26

25

25

25

30

24

23

24

24

24

27

19

28

29

28

39

41

40

41

38

36

41

41

37

38

40

35

38

40

42

27

25

27

25

25

33

28

26

29

28

26

36

27

24

21

5

5

5

5

4

5

5

6

5

6

3

7

5

5

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

2

3

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

2

1

1

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and Building Permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Planning and Building Permits importance detailed percentages

2015 Planning & Building Permits Importance

138


58

n/a

53

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

53

51

53

50

n/a

59

n/a

55

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

54

54

54

50

n/a

60

n/a

54

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

53

51

53

49

n/a

58

57

54

54

54

53

53

53

53

53

51

49

18-34

Regional Centres

Overall

Large Rural

Women

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Men

35-49

65+

50-64

Interface

2015 Planning and Building Permitsperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and Building Permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Planning & Building Permits Performance 2014 2013 2012

139


6

5

6

5

6

3

6

6

5

6

5

6

5

5

6

25

25

26

26

24

24

30

27

23

26

24

32

25

22

21

28

26

27

27

29

24

29

27

28

29

28

29

29

30

26

12

12

12

12

12

19

11

12

12

13

11

10

14

13

12

6

7

6

7

6

7

4

6

7

7

5

4

7

8

6

23

25

23

23

23

23

20

22

25

20

26

20

20

23

28

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Planning and Building Permits performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and Building Permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 28

2015 Planning & Building Permits Performance

140


n/a

77

75

n/a

73

n/a

72

73

n/a

n/a

70

68

n/a

76

74

n/a

72

n/a

71

72

n/a

n/a

70

68

n/a

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

69

67

77

77

75

74

73

73

73

73

72

71

70

69

Small Rural

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

65+

Men

2015 Environmental Sustainabilityimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Sustainability Importance

141


29

29

27

26

29

29

28

27

39

24

33

33

29

31

23

41

40

42

41

42

38

42

40

35

38

43

40

40

40

43

23

24

24

24

22

25

23

26

19

28

19

22

24

22

25

5

5

5

6

5

5

5

5

4

7

3

4

5

5

5

1

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental Sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 21

2015 Environmental Sustainability importance detailed percentages

2015 Sustainability Importance

142


n/a

65

65

64

n/a

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

62

n/a

66

65

64

n/a

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

62

n/a

67

65

64

n/a

64

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

65

65

65

64

64

64

64

63

63

63

63

62

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

2015 Environmental Sustainabilityperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Sustainability Performance 2014 2013 2012

143


10

11

11

11

11

8

9

11

10

11

10

11

9

9

11

39

39

40

39

39

39

38

39

38

38

39

42

39

36

38

30

29

29

29

28

27

33

31

29

30

29

30

30

31

28

7

6

7

7

6

6

7

7

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

13

12

12

12

14

17

12

11

13

12

13

9

12

14

15

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Environmental Sustainability performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental Sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 29

2015 Sustainability Performance

144


85

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

82

80

79

80

n/a

76

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

82

80

79

80

n/a

76

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

81

80

79

79

n/a

76

84

81

81

81

80

80

80

80

79

79

77

75

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Overall

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

35-49

65+

Metropolitan

Men

2015 Emergency and Disaster Managementimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Disaster Management Importance

145


44

45

46

43

39

50

45

46

43

35

53

47

45

47

39

35

34

34

38

34

30

36

36

37

36

33

32

33

33

41

15

14

14

14

19

14

14

13

16

20

11

15

17

15

14

4

4

4

4

6

3

3

3

3

6

2

5

4

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16

2015 Emergency and Disaster Management importance detailed percentages

2015 Disaster Management Importance

146


75

n/a

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

70

68

72

n/a

70

71

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

69

67

73

n/a

70

71

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

67

73

71

71

71

70

70

70

69

69

68

68

67

18-34

Large Rural

Women

65+

Overall

Interface

Small Rural

Metropolitan

Men

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

2015 Emergency and Disaster Managementperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Disaster Management Performance 2014 2013 2012

147


17

20

19

19

12

19

18

20

18

16

19

21

14

16

18

39

38

37

38

34

40

38

40

42

39

39

44

40

34

37

19

18

20

20

19

18

22

19

18

21

18

17

20

22

18

5

4

5

5

3

6

6

5

5

5

5

3

5

6

4

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

18

18

17

16

31

14

14

14

14

18

18

13

18

20

21

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Emergency and Disaster Management performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and Disaster Management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 22

2015 Disaster Management Performance

148


78

78

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

70

78

77

77

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

n/a

73

71

78

77

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

73

79

78

77

76

76

75

75

74

74

73

70

50-64

35-49

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

Overall

65+

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

18-34

2015 Planning for population growth in the areaimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Population Growth Importance

149


34

33

34

34

33

40

34

35

32

37

28

40

41

32

38

38

38

39

38

30

40

37

38

38

35

38

36

42

21

21

20

19

22

22

21

20

23

20

28

18

17

19

4

5

5

5

4

6

3

6

5

3

7

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13

2015 Planning for population growth in the area importance detailed percentages

2015 Population Growth Importance

150


n/a

59

n/a

55

54

n/a

54

55

52

n/a

51

n/a

59

n/a

54

54

n/a

54

55

51

n/a

50

n/a

58

n/a

52

52

n/a

52

52

48

n/a

49

61

60

57

55

54

54

54

54

51

50

50

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

65+

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

2015 Planning for population growth in the areaperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Population Growth Performance 2014 2013 2012

151


7

7

7

6

7

11

10

5

7

7

10

5

5

6

28

28

26

25

26

30

36

24

27

28

35

25

22

25

30

30

31

31

29

27

31

32

31

29

28

33

32

29

14

15

14

16

14

13

10

17

15

14

10

17

17

14

6

6

6

7

6

7

3

8

7

6

4

7

8

6

15

15

17

14

18

13

10

13

13

16

12

12

16

20

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Planning for population growth in the area performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 16

2015 Population Growth Performance

152


n/a

78

n/a

78

76

n/a

76

75

n/a

71

68

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

77

76

n/a

77

74

n/a

72

66

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

74

71

n/a

73

71

n/a

68

65

n/a

77

76

75

75

75

74

74

73

70

70

65

62

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

Women

35-49

Large Rural

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

2015 Roadside slashing and weed controlimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 10Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Weed Control Importance

153


28

32

30

24

13

34

23

30

39

24

32

18

33

33

28

40

40

42

42

36

37

39

42

39

40

40

34

38

42

46

26

23

24

28

40

24

31

24

16

29

24

39

23

22

22

5

4

4

5

9

5

6

4

4

7

3

8

5

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 10

2015 Roadside slashing and weed control importance detailed percentages

2015 Weed Control Importance

154


n/a

63

n/a

55

55

53

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

51

n/a

63

n/a

56

56

56

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

52

n/a

67

n/a

61

61

59

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

58

69

62

58

55

55

55

54

53

52

52

52

51

Metropolitan

18-34

Regional Centres

Overall

Women

35-49

Men

Large Rural

Interface

Small Rural

65+

50-64

2015 Roadside slashing and weed controlperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Weed Control Performance 2014 2013 2012

155


10

11

11

14

19

10

10

8

10

10

10

14

9

8

9

32

32

35

38

45

29

34

32

29

33

32

39

35

28

27

30

28

28

28

24

29

35

30

29

29

31

29

29

31

31

16

17

16

12

8

20

12

18

18

18

15

12

16

19

18

9

10

8

5

2

10

6

9

12

9

9

5

9

11

10

2

3

2

3

2

2

4

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

4

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Roadside slashing and weed control performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13

2015 Weed Control Performance

156


n/a

81

80

80

78

n/a

77

n/a

76

77

n/a

n/a

83

82

82

81

n/a

80

n/a

79

80

n/a

n/a

82

81

80

80

n/a

79

n/a

78

79

n/a

82

80

80

79

78

78

78

76

76

76

72

Small Rural

Women

50-64

35-49

Overall

Interface

65+

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Regional Centres

2015 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Unsealed Roads Importance

157


39

39

44

41

40

25

35

44

35

42

39

40

42

35

39

38

39

39

38

43

38

39

39

38

34

38

38

43

18

17

14

15

18

26

21

14

21

16

23

18

16

17

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13

2015 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance detailed percentages

2015 Unsealed Roads Importance

158


n/a

46

n/a

48

45

n/a

46

45

n/a

45

42

n/a

47

n/a

48

44

n/a

45

43

n/a

42

40

n/a

48

n/a

50

46

n/a

46

46

n/a

44

43

51

48

47

46

45

45

45

45

44

44

43

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Women

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

2015 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 20Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Unsealed Roads Performance 2014 2013 2012

159


5

5

6

7

5

4

5

6

5

5

6

5

4

5

22

22

20

22

25

27

21

23

23

22

28

22

19

21

30

30

29

29

30

32

30

29

30

30

29

29

32

30

22

22

24

21

21

17

22

21

22

22

20

23

24

20

15

14

16

15

12

7

15

16

15

14

14

17

15

13

7

7

4

7

7

13

7

5

5

8

3

4

6

11

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2015 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 20

2015 Unsealed Roads Performance

160


n/a

n/a

71

71

69

70

69

68

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

71

70

69

69

69

68

67

67

66

Large Rural

Small Rural

Women

35-49

Overall

18-34

50-64

65+

Interface

Men

Metropolitan

2015 Business and community developmentimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Business/Community Development Importance

161


20

20

17

18

23

24

20

21

21

23

21

17

42

45

38

40

45

42

38

45

39

41

42

44

31

27

36

35

27

27

33

28

34

31

29

29

5

5

7

5

3

5

6

4

5

4

5

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 7

2015 Business and community development importance detailed percentages

2015 Business/Community Development Importance

162


65

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

62

n/a

60

60

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

63

63

61

61

61

60

60

59

59

58

54

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Small Rural

Women

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Men

35-49

50-64

Regional Centres

2015 Business and community developmentperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Business/Community Development Performance 2014 2013 2012

163


8

8

7

10

7

7

9

7

8

8

7

7

8

34

35

34

37

27

36

34

33

36

46

34

29

28

31

30

30

29

38

30

31

32

30

28

33

34

30

9

8

5

8

14

10

9

9

8

7

10

11

7

3

2

1

2

7

3

3

3

2

2

4

3

2

15

17

22

13

6

13

14

15

16

9

12

16

23

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 Business and community development performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 13

2015 Business/Community Development Performance

164


n/a

n/a

65

66

67

65

64

n/a

63

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

67

67

67

66

65

65

64

63

59

50

Small Rural

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Women

Overall

35-49

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Interface

2015 Tourism developmentimportance index scores

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 6Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2014 2013 20122015 Tourism Development Importance

165


19

18

8

14

21

27

19

18

15

19

22

19

36

37

20

39

39

40

34

38

26

38

39

41

32

31

41

36

29

25

31

33

40

32

28

27

10

10

25

9

7

5

12

8

15

8

8

8

3

2

6

3

1

4

1

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 6

2015 Tourism development importance detailed percentages

2015 Tourism Development Importance

166


n/a

n/a

66

66

64

64

n/a

62

64

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

66

65

64

64

63

63

62

62

61

55

53

Regional Centres

Large Rural

65+

Women

18-34

Overall

Small Rural

Men

50-64

35-49

Metropolitan

Interface

2015 Tourism developmentperformance index scores

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 12Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 Tourism Development Performance 2014 2013 2012

167


12

13

4

4

18

14

14

12

12

11

11

11

14

35

36

22

25

39

40

38

33

37

38

35

33

34

28

28

32

33

29

26

27

30

27

32

28

30

25

9

9

11

16

6

8

9

9

8

6

12

10

8

3

2

2

2

2

2

5

3

3

3

3

2

3

13

13

30

20

6

11

8

13

13

11

11

14

16

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2015 Tourism development performance detailed percentages

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 12

2015 Tourism Development Performance

DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS

169


2015 GENDER AND AGE profile

49%51%MenWomen

11%

15%

25%21%

28%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+

Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 69

Gender Age

170


2015 HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 11

27

22

20

16

7

3

3

2

Married or living with partner with children 16or under at home

Married or living with partner with childrenbut none 16 or under at home

Married or living with partner, no children

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or underliving at home

Do not wish to answer

2015 Household Structure

%

171


13

14

14

15

14

17

12

10

11

12

14

22

14

8

6

14

14

14

16

12

25

15

14

12

14

15

18

20

9

9

73

71

72

68

73

58

73

76

76

74

72

60

66

82

85

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 18

2015 years lived in area

2015 Years Lived in Area

172


82

83

83

81

76

84

93

84

81

67

85

94

92

17

16

16

18

23

16

7

15

19

33

14

5

7

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Own Rent

Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental property?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 4

2015 Home ownership

2015 Own or Rent

173


60

40

5

4

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

English only

Languages other than English

VIETNAMESE

CHINESE

ITALIAN

GREEK

HINDI

ARABIC

CROATIAN

FRENCH

GERMAN

RUSSIAN

SPANISH

61

39

6

5

2

2

1

1

Australia

Total Other

UNITED KINGDOM

INDIA

CHINA

NEW ZEALAND

GERMANY

GREECE

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 3 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked State-wide: 2

2015 languages spoken at home 2015 Countries of Birth

2015 Languages Spoken

%

2015 Countries of Birth

%

APPENDIX A: FURTHER PROJECT INFORMATION

175


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to the known population distribution of the State according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2015 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

Appendix A: Background and objectives

176


The sample size for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=28,316. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately n=28,316 interviews is +/-0.6% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 49.4% - 50.6%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 3,663,000 people aged 18 years or over overall, according to ABS estimates.

Appendix A: Margins of error

Demographic Actual survey sample size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error at 95% confidence

intervalOverall 28316 27600 +/-0.6Men 12449 13619 +/-0.9Women 15867 13981 +/-0.8Metropolitan 6901 6800 +/-1.2Interface 2500 2400 +/-2.0Regional Centres 3000 2800 +/-1.8Large Rural 8704 8400 +/-1.0Small Rural 7211 7200 +/-1.218-34 years 2900 7053 +/-1.835-49 years 4868 6893 +/-1.450-64 years 8822 5840 +/-1.065+ years 11726 7814 +/-0.9

177


In 2015, 69 of the 79 Victorian councils chose to participate in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings, as classified below. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings.

Please note that councils participating in 2012, 2013 and 2014 vary slightly to those participating in 2015, and that council groupings have changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results have not been made within the report.

Appendix A: Analysis and reporting

Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small RuralBanyule Cardinia Ballarat Bass Coast AlpineBayside Casey Greater Bendigo Baw Baw Ararat

Boroondara Melton Greater Geelong Campaspe BenallaBrimbank Mornington Peninsula Greater Shepparton Colac Otway BulokeFrankston Whittlesea Latrobe Corangamite Central GoldfieldsGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura East Gippsland Gannawarra

Greater Dandenong Warrnambool Glenelg HepburnKingston Golden Plains Hindmarsh

Knox Horsham IndigoManningham Macedon Ranges LoddonMaroondah Mitchell MansfieldMelbourne Moira Murrindindi

Monash Moorabool PyreneesMoonee Valley Mount Alexander Queenscliffe

Moreland Moyne StrathbogiePort Phillip South Gippsland Towong

Stonnington Southern Grampians West WimmeraSurf Coast YarriambiackSwan Hill

WangarattaWellington

Non-participating councils: Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Nillumbik, Northern Grampians, Whitehorse, Wodonga, Wyndham, Yarra.

178


Index ScoresMany questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 benchmark survey and measured against the State-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.


SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9Good 40% 75 30Average 37% 50 19Poor 9% 25 2Very poor 4% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60

179


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.


SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

180


The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($3*2 / $5) + ($4*2 / $6))

Where:$1 = Index Score 1$2 = Index Score 2$3 = unweighted sample count 1$4 = unweighted sample count 1$5 = standard deviation 1$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are significantly different.

Appendix A:index score significant difference calculation

181


Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised: Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance) Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy) Community consultation and engagement (Consultation) Decisions made in the interest of the community (Making community decisions) Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads) Contact in last 12 months (Contact) Rating of contact (Customer service) Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils State-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


182


ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2015 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with a State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The Overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au.


http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/

183


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2015 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.State-wide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Appendix A: Glossary of terms

Documents

2015 Research Report - Local Government · J00326 Community Satisfaction Survey 2015 – Research Report Background and objectives ... the highest rated individual service areas are