Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Background and objectives 5
Survey methodology and sampling 6
Further information 8
Key findings and recommendations 9
Summary of findings 19
Detailed findings 40
➢ Key core measure: Overall performance 41
➢ Key core measure: Customer service 44
➢ Key core measure: Council direction indicators 54
➢ Communications 61
Individual service areas 66
➢ Community consultation and engagement 67
➢ Lobbying on behalf of the community 71
➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community 75
➢ The condition of sealed local roads in your area 79
➢ Informing the community 83
➢ The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area 87
➢ Traffic management 91
➢ Parking facilities 95
3
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
➢ Enforcement of local laws 99
➢ Family support services 103
➢ Elderly support services 107
➢ Disadvantaged support services 111
➢ Recreational facilities 115
➢ The appearance of public areas 119
➢ Art centres and libraries 123
➢ Community and cultural activities 127
➢ Waste management 131
➢ Business and community development and tourism 135
➢ Council’s general town planning policy 139
➢ Planning and building permits 143
➢ Environmental sustainability 147
➢ Emergency and disaster management 151
➢ Planning for population growth in the area 155
➢ Roadside slashing and weed control 159
Detailed demographics 163
Appendix A: Further project information 165
4
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
64 65 59
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
Council Metropolitan State-wide
75
75
73
Waste management
Recreational facilities
Art centres and libraries
7750
7853
7449
-27 -26 -25Planning for population growth in the area
Planning & building permits
PerformanceImportance Net differential
Decisions made in the interest of the community
5
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Welcome to the report of results and recommendations
for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council.
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. Participating
councils have various 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 Kingston City Council 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.
6
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative
random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years
in Kingston City Council.
Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of
Kingston City Council as determined by the most
recent ABS population estimates was purchased from
an accredited supplier of publicly available phone
records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to
cater to the diversity of residents within Kingston City
Council, particularly younger people.
A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in
Kingston City Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted
in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2018.
The 2018 results are compared with previous years, as
detailed below:
• 2017, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2015, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 31st January – 11th March.
• 2013, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period
of 1st February – 24th March.
• 2012, n=400 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 the
Kingston City 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.
7
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
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 state-wide result is significantly higher than the
overall result for the council.
• 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 2017.
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 2017.
• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is
significantly lower than the result achieved among
this group in 2017.
54
57
58
60
67
66
50-64
35-49
Metro
Kingston
18-34
State-wide
Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)
Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may be found in Appendix B.
8
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Further information about the report and explanations
about the State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B,
including:
➢ Background and objectives
➢ Margins of error
➢ Analysis and reporting
➢ Glossary of terms
Contacts
For further queries about the conduct and reporting of
the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on
(03) 8685 8555.
10
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
The overall performance index score of 64 for
Kingston City Council represents a two-point (not
significant) decline from the 2017 result. Overall
performance ratings have trended down from a high
index score of 69 in 2014.
➢ Kingston City Council’s overall performance is rated
statistically significantly higher (at the 95%
confidence interval) than the average rating for
councils State-wide (index score of 59) and in
line with the Metropolitan group (index score of
65).
➢ Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 71)
continue to rate Council’s overall performance
significantly higher than other resident groups.
➢ Most groups declined by only a few index points in
their impressions of Council’s overall performance
since 2017. Residents aged 35 to 49 years (index
score of 59), however, declined by a significant
eight index points in the past year.
Residents are still much more likely to rate Kingston
City Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ (10%)
or ‘good’ (49%) than ‘poor’ (7%) or ‘very poor’ (4%). A
further 28% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating.
64 65 59
Results shown are index scores out of 100.
Council Metropolitan State-wide
11
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Review of the core performance measures (as shown
on page 21) shows that Kingston City Council’s
performance declined on most measures compared
to Council’s own results in 2017.
➢ The exceptions are that Council performance
increased slightly (by two index points) on the
measures of sealed local roads (index score of
69) and customer service (index score of 74)
since 2017. The higher index score on the
measure of sealed local roads can be credited to a
significant increase in impressions among
residents of the Southern region (index score of
69, six points higher than 2017).
➢ Performance index scores declined significantly on
the core measures of consultation and
engagement (index score of 54, five points lower
than 2017), lobbying (53, six points lower), and
community decisions (53, seven points lower)
since 2017. Ratings on all three measures are at
their lowest levels to date.
➢ Ratings in each of the three aforementioned areas
declined significantly among residents under 50
years of age, women, and residents of the South
and Central regions. In the case of community
decisions, ratings also declined significantly
among residents of the North and men.
Council performs in line with the Metropolitan group on
most core measures with the exception of
consultation and engagement, lobbying, and
community decisions (measures that experienced
significant declines), where Council performs
significantly lower than group averages.
➢ Council’s performance on core measures are in
line with State-wide averages for councils, except
in the areas of overall performance, sealed local
roads, and customer service, where Council’s
performance is significantly higher than State-wide
averages.
Performance ratings are largely consistent across
geographic sub-groups within Kingston City Council
with one notable difference. Southern residents rate
Council customer service highest relative to other
groups (index score of 79), while Central residents
rate Council lowest (index score of 69).
12
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Three in five (64%) Kingston City Council
residents have had recent contact with Council.
Residents of the Southern region (71%) are most likely
to have contacted Council in recent months. They also
rate Council highest for the quality of their customer
service interactions (index score of 79).
➢ The main method of contacting councils is by
telephone (35%), followed by in person (25%) and
email (21%) outreach. Email usage has more than
doubled since 2014 (now at 9%).
Customer service (index score of 74) is the highest
rated core performance measure and second highest
rated service area overall. Customer service ratings
increased slightly (by two index points) in the past year
but remain lower than 2014 peak ratings (index score
of 79).
➢ Three-quarters of residents (77%) rate Council’s
customer service as ‘very good’ or ‘good’
combined.
➢ Southern residents grew significantly more
favourable (10 points higher than 2017) in their
impressions of Council’s customer service in the
past year.
➢ Kingston City Council performs in line with the
Metropolitan group and significantly higher than
the State-wide average for councils (index score of
72 and 70 respectively) on the measure of
customer service.
Newsletters sent via email (32%) and mail (30%)
remain the preferred method for Council to inform
residents about news, information and upcoming
events among both residents under and over fifty
years of age. Demand for mailed newsletters is
trending down (declining eight percentage points
since 2016), while preferences for emailed
newsletters are trending up (increasing five
percentage points since 2016). For the first time,
preferences favour email over mailed newsletters.
➢ The popularity of text messages has increased
five-fold in the past two years (10% in 2018 from
2% in 2016), largely among residents under fifty
years of age (14%).
13
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Waste management is the area where Kingston City
Council performs most strongly (index score of 75).
Performance in this area has remained stable over
time.
➢ Three-quarters of residents (76%) rate Council’s
performance in this service area as ‘very good’ or
‘good’.
➢ Ratings are relatively consistent across
demographic and geographic sub-groups on this
measure.
➢ Council performs in line with the Metropolitan
group and significantly higher than the State-wide
average for councils on this measure (index scores
of 75 and 70 respectively).
➢ Waste management is also considered the most
important Council responsibility evaluated
(importance index score of 84).
Another area where Kingston City Council is well
regarded is art centres and libraries. With a
performance index score of 75, this service area ranks
alongside waste management as the top performing
council service area. Council has been able to
maintain gains achieved between 2016 and 2017 in
this area.
➢ Seven in ten (69%) residents rate Council’s
performance for the appearance of public areas as
‘very good’ or ‘good’.
➢ Council performs in line with the Metropolitan
group and State-wide average for councils on this
measure (index scores of 75 and 74 respectively).
➢ Art centres and libraries, however, rate lower
compared to other service areas evaluated in
terms of perceived importance (importance index
score of 66).
14
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
While most service areas perform in line with average
ratings for the Metropolitan group, Council’s
performance index scores declined significantly in
eight areas in the past year, largely related to regional
planning (growth and development-related) and
community consultation. Declines occurred in the
areas of recreational facilities, appearance of public
areas, consultation and engagement, lobbying,
community decisions, town planning policy, population
growth, and planning and building permits.
➢ In fact, 13% of residents mention community
consultation, 13% mention inappropriate
development, and 12% mention traffic
management as the issues where Council needs
to improve.
➢ Nine in ten residents (89%) believe there is room
for improvement in Council’s performance,
including 43% who believe there is ‘a lot’ of room
for improvement.
The most significant declines in 2018 occurred in the
areas of community decisions (index score of 53,
seven points lower than 2017) and planning and
building permits (49, seven points lower). Council’s
performance index score for community decisions
declined significantly for the first time since 2014;
performance in this area was stable between 2014
and 2017.
➢ All demographic and geographic sub-groups
declined significantly in the past year in their
impressions of Council’s ability to make decisions
in the best interests of the community, with the
exception of residents aged 50+ years who
declined by only a few points in their impressions.
➢ Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 61,
nine points lower than 2017) have significantly more
favourable impressions than the average, while
residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 46,
12 points lower) have significantly less favourable
impressions. Both groups, however, declined
significantly in their impressions of performance in
this area since 2017.
15
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
➢ Again, Council performs significantly lower than
the Metropolitan group but in line with the State-
wide average for councils (index scores of 58 and
54 respectively) on the measure of community
decisions.
➢ Community decisions is rated third highest in
terms of importance relative to other service areas
evaluated (importance index score of 78).
As a result of ratings declines, Council is currently
rated lowest for planning and building permits
(index score of 49) relative to other service areas and
is seen to be performing poorly in this service area.
➢ This is in line with the Metropolitan group but
significantly lower than the State-wide average
(performance index scores of 53 and 52
respectively).
➢ Lower ratings in this area can be attributed to
more critical ratings among residents aged 18 to
34 years (index score of 54, 14 points lower since
2017), residents in the North (53, nine points
lower), and women (46, 11 points lower).
➢ Residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of
41) are significantly less favourable than the
average in their impressions of council
performance in this area.
➢ Almost equal numbers of residents describe
Council performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’
(26%) as do ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ (24%). A further
31% describe performance as ‘average’ and 18%
‘can’t say’.
16
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Two-thirds (66%) of residents believe Council is
generally headed in the right direction. Nonetheless,
for the coming 12 months, Kingston City Council
should pay particular attention to the service areas
where stated importance exceeds rated
performance by more than 10 points. Key priorities
include eight areas where the performance gap
exceeds 15 points:
➢ Population growth (margin of 27 points)
➢ Community decisions (margin of 26 points)
➢ Planning & building permits (margin of 25
points)
➢ Town planning policy (margin of 24 points)
➢ Consultation and engagement (margin of 21
points)
➢ Parking facilities (margin of 19 points)
➢ Traffic management (margin of 18 points)
➢ Informing the community (margin of 17 points).
Council should also give consideration to residents
aged 35 to 64 years who seem to be driving negative
opinions in 2018.
On the positive side, Council should maintain its
relatively strong performance in the areas of
customer service, waste management, and art
centres and libraries.
In planning for service improvements, it is important to
note that residents prefer service cuts to keep rates at
current levels (49%) to rate rises to improve services
(33%).
The shows the individual service areas which
regression analysis on pages 31-35 have the
strongest influence on the overall performance rating
are:
➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community
➢ Informing the community
Good communication, informing the community and
transparency with residents about decisions the
Council has made in the Kingston community’s interest
as well as improved traffic management and general
town planning could help drive up overall opinion of the
Council’s performance.
17
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
An approach we recommend 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, 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 understanding the responses of the key
gender and age groups, especially any target groups
identified as requiring attention.
A personal briefing by senior JWS Research
representatives is also available to assist in
providing both explanation and interpretation of
the results. Please contact JWS Research on 03
8685 8555.
18
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Higher results in 2018(Significantly higher result than 2017) • No significant change
Lower results in 2018(Significantly lower result than 2017)
• Consultation and
engagement
• Lobbying
• Recreational facilities
• Appearance of public
areas
• Community decisions
• Town planning policy
• Population growth
• Planning and building
permits
Most favourably disposed
towards Council • Aged 18-34 years
Least favourably disposed
towards Council• Aged 35-49 years
• Aged 50-64 years
20
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
6567
69 6866 66
64
6058
60 60
55
59
5455
59 60 59
55
59
53
6058 58
60
53
68 68 67 6769
74 73
79
74 7472
74
5457 57 58
54 55
52
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Sealed
Local
Roads
Community
Consultation
Customer
ServiceOverall
Council
Direction
Overall
PerformanceAdvocacy Making
Community
Decisions
21
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Performance MeasuresKingston
2018
Kingston
2017
Metro
2018
State-
wide
2018
Highest
score
Lowest
score
OVERALL PERFORMANCE 64 66 65 59Aged 18-
34 years
Aged 50-
64 years,
Aged 35-
49 years
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and
engagement)
54 59 57 55Aged 65+
years
Aged 35-
49 years
ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)
53 59 56 54Aged 18-
34 years
Aged 50-
64 years
MAKING COMMUNITY
DECISIONS (Decisions made in the
interest of the community)
53 60 58 54Aged 18-
34 years
Aged 35-
49 years
SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)
69 67 68 53Aged 18-
34 years
Aged 65+
years
CUSTOMER SERVICE 74 72 72 70 South Central
OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 55 54 52Aged 18-
34 years
Aged 35-
49 years
22
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
10
9
3
6
22
33
49
28
26
28
43
44
28
32
31
31
23
9
7
16
11
13
9
4
4
7
5
9
2
6
1
8
25
13
1
3
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
17 65 14 4Overall Council Direction
%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
23
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
86
71
17
81
68
16
Parking facilities
Recreational facilities
Town planning policy
Total household use
Personal use
%
Experience of Services
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. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5
24
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
77
78
74
74
75
74
75
76
67
75
80
74
Population growth
Community decisions
Planning & building permits
Town planning policy
Consultation & engagement
Parking facilities
Traffic management
Informing the community
Lobbying
Disadvantaged support serv.
Elderly support services
Environmental sustainability
50
53
49
50
54
55
58
59
53
62
67
63
Importance Performance Net Differential
Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,
suggesting further investigation is necessary:
-27
-26
-25
-24
-21
-19
-18
-17
-14
-13
-12
-11
25
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
83
79
81
77
79
78
78
77
78
74
73
73
74
76
74
72
75
74
74
70
66
65
62
61
81
77
79
72
77
74
78
76
74
72
74
71
75
72
75
72
73
71
68
66
65
64
62
59
81
80
82
74
77
75
76
76
74
71
75
72
76
73
75
72
73
71
72
68
66
62
62
58
79
79
78
70
76
74
76
73
73
69
75
70
75
71
74
70
71
70
70
66
65
63
60
59
81
79
n/a
69
76
74
77
n/a
74
70
72
69
74
69
74
71
74
72
73
67
66
65
62
60
80
n/a
n/a
73
77
75
77
n/a
75
73
n/a
71
n/a
74
71
71
74
72
71
69
n/a
65
n/a
59
2018 Priority Area Importance
84
80
78
77
76
76
76
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
72
72
71
67
66
62
60
58
Waste management
Elderly support services
Community decisions
Population growth
Emergency & disaster mngt
Informing the community
Local streets & footpaths
Sealed local roads
Traffic management
Consultation & engagement
Disadvantaged support serv.
Town planning policy
Family support services
Planning & building permits
Environmental sustainability
Parking facilities
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Enforcement of local laws
Lobbying
Art centres & libraries
Slashing & weed control
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
26
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
46
39
38
30
32
35
32
42
30
40
30
23
33
31
34
24
28
30
28
22
17
12
10
12
44
42
39
45
43
38
40
31
42
31
41
47
36
39
34
44
40
38
38
38
40
36
34
28
10
16
18
22
20
21
23
19
23
20
23
26
22
26
26
26
26
25
26
28
33
43
45
42
1
1
1
2
2
5
3
5
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
4
2
3
5
8
8
7
8
15
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
Waste management
Elderly support services
Community decisions
Local streets & footpaths
Sealed local roads
Informing the community
Traffic management
Population growth
Disadvantaged support serv.
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Appearance of public areas
Environmental sustainability
Parking facilities
Consultation & engagement
Recreational facilities
Town planning policy
Planning & building permits
Enforcement of local laws
Lobbying
Art centres & libraries
Slashing & weed control
Community & cultural
Bus/community dev./tourism
%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Individual Service Areas Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10
27
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Priority Area Performance
76
74
76
75
72
67
69
70
68
68
66
65
62
64
61
60
56
57
59
59
60
56
54
56
76
72
71
73
69
67
66
68
66
68
63
64
65
62
59
59
56
57
55
55
58
52
48
47
77
77
75
74
74
68
71
69
69
69
68
67
65
64
62
61
64
60
60
59
58
57
58
56
77
76
74
74
72
68
72
69
71
68
65
67
63
64
63
61
63
61
60
60
60
58
58
55
73
75
74
73
71
n/a
68
68
69
65
65
64
67
64
63
60
62
59
58
59
n/a
58
58
60
74
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
66
66
66
64
n/a
63
58
57
60
60
55
n/a
59
54
57
75
75
73
72
72
69
69
68
67
67
67
65
63
62
59
58
58
55
54
53
53
50
50
49
Waste management
Art centres & libraries
Recreational facilities
Appearance of public areas
Community & cultural
Sealed local roads
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Elderly support services
Slashing & weed control
Local streets & footpaths
Enforcement of local laws
Environmental sustainability
Disadvantaged support serv.
Informing the community
Bus/community dev./tourism
Traffic management
Parking facilities
Consultation & engagement
Lobbying
Community decisions
Town planning policy
Population growth
Planning & building permits
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.
28
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Individual Service Areas Performance
28
21
22
24
20
22
18
16
12
9
10
8
5
11
11
11
9
4
6
7
3
4
4
3
48
53
48
45
46
43
44
45
38
40
38
39
39
33
32
26
28
32
28
24
26
22
21
20
19
21
19
19
24
23
27
29
26
31
29
31
32
22
20
21
32
32
31
25
31
31
35
35
2
4
5
3
4
9
9
7
7
13
15
7
16
2
4
4
16
10
13
6
11
15
17
16
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
5
6
2
7
1
7
2
9
1
5
9
6
5
2
5
9
7
1
2
15
2
2
14
1
31
33
36
8
20
13
37
25
18
17
21
Waste management
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Art centres & libraries
Community & cultural
Sealed local roads
Local streets & footpaths
Slashing & weed control
Enforcement of local laws
Informing the community
Traffic management
Environmental sustainability
Parking facilities
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Elderly support services
Consultation & engagement
Bus/community dev./tourism
Community decisions
Disadvantaged support serv.
Lobbying
Planning & building permits
Population growth
Town planning policy%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14
29
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Significantly Higher than
State-wide Average
Significantly Lower than
State-wide Average
• Local streets & footpaths
• Recreational facilities
• Community & cultural
• Waste management
• Slashing & weed control
• Sealed local roads
• Town planning policy
• Planning permits
30
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Significantly Higher than
Group Average
Significantly Lower than
Group Average
• Local streets & footpaths • Consultation & engagement
• Lobbying
• Town planning policy
• Making community
decisions
31
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)
Kingston City Council
1. Waste
management
2. Elderly support
services
3. Community
decisions
Metropolitan
1. Waste
management
2. Emergency &
disaster mngt
3. Community
decisions
Interface
1. Traffic
management
2. Emergency &
disaster mngt
3. Waste
management
Regional Centres
1. Emergency &
disaster mngt
2. Sealed roads
3. Community
decisions
Large Rural
1. Sealed roads
2. Unsealed roads
3. Emergency &
disaster mngt
Small Rural
1. Emergency &
disaster mngt
2. Waste
management
3. Community
decisions
Bottom Three Least Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)
Kingston City Council
1. Bus/community
dev./tourism
2. Community &
cultural
3. Slashing & weed
control
Metropolitan
1. Bus/community
dev./tourism
2. Community &
cultural
3. Slashing & weed
control
Interface
1. Tourism
development
2. Community &
cultural
3. Bus/community
dev./tourism
Regional Centres
1. Community &
cultural
2. Art centres &
libraries
3. Lobbying
Large Rural
1. Community &
cultural
2. Art centres &
libraries
3. Traffic
management
Small Rural
1. Community &
cultural
2. Art centres &
libraries
3. Tourism
development
32
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Top Three Performing Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)
Kingston City Council
1. Waste
management
2. Art centres &
libraries
3. Recreational
facilities
Metropolitan
1. Art centres &
libraries
2. Waste
management
3. Recreational
facilities
Interface
1. Art centres &
libraries
2. Emergency &
disaster mngt
3. Recreational
facilities
Regional Centres
1. Art centres &
libraries
2. Appearance of
public areas
3. Emergency &
disaster mngt
Large Rural
1. Art centres &
libraries
2. Emergency &
disaster mngt
3. Appearance of
public areas
Small Rural
1. Art centres &
libraries
2. Emergency &
disaster mngt
3. Appearance of
public areas
Bottom Three Performing Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)
Kingston City Council
1. Planning permits
2. Population growth
3. Town planning
policy
Metropolitan
1. Population growth
2. Planning permits
3. Town planning
policy
Interface
1. Unsealed roads
2. Population growth
3. Traffic
management
Regional Centres
1. Parking facilities
2. Community
decisions
3. Unsealed roads
Large Rural
1. Unsealed roads
2. Sealed roads
3. Planning permits
Small Rural
1. Unsealed roads
2. Sealed roads
3. Population growth
33
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
To predict a respondent’s score on a question related
to overall performance, based on knowledge of their
performance scores for individual areas, we use
regression analysis. For example, suppose we are
interested in predicting which areas of local
government responsibility could influence a person’s
opinion on overall council performance. The
independent variables would be areas of responsibility
tested (e.g. community consultation, traffic
management, etc.) and the dependent variable would
be overall performance.
The stronger the correlation between the dependent
variable (overall opinion) and individual areas of
responsibility, the closer the scores will fall to the
regression line and the more accurate the prediction.
Multiple regression can predict one variable on the
basis of several other variables. Therefore, we can test
perceptions of council’s overall performance to
investigate which set of areas are influencing
respondents' opinions.
In the chart of the regression results, the horizontal
axis represents the council performance index for each
area of responsibility. Areas plotted on the right-side
have a higher performance index than those on the
left.
The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta
Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.
This measures the contribution of each variable (i.e.
each area) to the model, with a larger Beta value
indicating a greater effect on overall performance.
Therefore areas of responsibility located near the top
of the following chart are more likely to have an impact
on respondent’s overall rating, than the areas closest
to the axis.
The regressions are shown on the following three
charts. The first chart shows a regression analysis of
all the service areas chosen by the Council. However,
this model should be interpreted with caution because
some of the data are not normally distributed and not
all items have linear correlations.
Therefore, in the charts that follow, a significant
regression model of fewer items with a Standardised
Beta score close to or higher than ±0.1 was run to
determine the key predictors that have a moderate to
strong influence on overall performance perceptions.
The third chart is an enlarged version of the second
chart, with key findings highlighted.
The results are then discussed according to the
findings of these key service areas. Some findings
from the full regression list may be included in the
discussion if they are of interest.
34
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
The multiple regression analysis model of all question items above has an R-squared value of 0.581 and adjusted R-square value of 0.554, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 21.67. However, this model should be interpreted with caution because not all service areas had linear correlations. We recommend you use the regression model of reduced factors as follows.
35
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.579 and adjusted R-square value of 0.569, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 59.64.
36
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.579 and adjusted R-square value of 0.569, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 59.64.
37
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
The individual service areas which have the strongest
influence on the overall performance rating are:
➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community
➢ Informing the community
Other key areas with a positive influence on overall
performance include:
➢ The appearance of public areas
➢ The condition of sealed local roads (excluding
VicRoads highways and roads)
➢ The condition of local streets and footpaths in your
area
Looking specifically at the key service areas, the
appearance of public areas has the strongest positive
performance index and a strong positive influence on
the overall performance rating. Currently, Kingston City
Council is performing very well in this area
(performance index of 72) and, while it should remain
a focus, there is greater work to be done elsewhere.
Art centres and libraries also have a high performance
rating (75), but this service area has a negligible
influence on the overall performance rating.
Kingston City Council’s decisions made in the
community’s interest, how well it informs the
community and traffic management have lower
(though still positive) performance ratings overall.
Continuing efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift
Kingston City Council’s overall performance rating
because of their strong influence on the overall
performance perceptions. (These areas have
performance indices of 53-58).
Council's general town planning has the lowest
performance rating (50), and is an area which could
have a strong influence on overall performance
perceptions if attended to.
Population growth as well as planning and building
permits also have low performance indices (50 and
48), but these areas have a weak influence on overall
performance perceptions.
Good communication, informing the community and
transparency with residents about decisions the
Council has made in the Kingston community’s interest
as well as improved traffic management and general
town planning could help drive up overall opinion of the
Council’s performance.
38
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
13
13
12
9
8
5
5
5
5
6
Community Consultation
Development - Inappropriate
Traffic Management
Parking Availability
Communication
Sealed Road Maintenance
Waste Management
Environmental Issues
Decision Making Processes
Nothing
2018 Areas for Improvement
%
Q17. What does Kingston City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 9
39
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Areas for
Improvement
• Community Consultation: 13% (up 7 points from 2017)
• Development - Inappropriate: 13% (equal points on 2017)
• Traffic Management: 12% (up 1 point from 2017)
42
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Overall Performance
71
67
65
65
64
64
63
63
62
59
59
59
18-34
North
Metro
Women
65+
Kingston
South
Men
Central
35-49
50-64
State-wide
72
67
64
67
63
66
67
66
65
67
61
59
68
68
66
70
66
66
63
62
68
66
63
59
67
69
67
69
71
68
73
68
63
67
68
60
74
65
n/a
70
69
69
73
68
70
67
66
61
68
66
n/a
69
73
67
68
64
65
62
66
60
68
64
n/a
66
68
65
68
65
64
63
62
60
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
43
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
10
12
15
18
17
13
11
9
12
14
8
10
9
11
10
9
11
12
49
49
47
46
52
50
48
37
48
51
50
47
50
49
69
43
39
43
28
30
30
27
22
28
33
36
29
24
29
31
27
30
20
30
28
37
7
7
5
5
5
5
4
11
7
7
7
7
8
7
12
14
5
4
1
4
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
3
2
6
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Overall Performance
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14
45
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Overall contact with
Kingston City Council• 64%, up 2 points on 2017
Most contact with Kingston
City Council• South residents
Least contact with Kingston
City Council• Aged 18-34 years
Customer service rating • Index score of 74, up 2 points on 2017
Most satisfied with customer
service• South residents
Least satisfied with
customer service• Central residents
46
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Contact with Council
%
71
70
67
67
64
64
63
62
60
60
59
57
South
50-64
Women
35-49
Kingston
Metro
State-wide
65+
Central
Men
North
18-34
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
47
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Contact with Council
6462
5961
56
6264
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Have had contact
%
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6
48
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Method of Contact
36 3634 33
3537
35
29
25 24 2422
24 25
11
16
911
13
17
21
15
1816 15 14
111313 13
10 9 10 11
15
2 3 24 5
35
1 1 1 2 2
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
%
By
By Text
MessageBy Social
Media
In
WritingVia
Website
In
Person
By
Telephone
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%
49
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Most Recent Contact
44
41
45
40
4442
37
30
21
24
27
24 25
22
810
8 9 8
14
17
10
15 16 15
8 9 9
68
5 6
9 8
10
1 2 2 35
2
5
1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
%
By
By Text
MessageBy Social
Media
In
WritingVia
Website
In
Person
By
Telephone
Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Kingston City Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%
50
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Customer Service Rating
79
76
76
74
74
74
74
73
72
71
70
69
South
Women
65+
18-34
50-64
Kingston
North
35-49
Metro
Men
State-wide
Central
69
75
73
75
67
72
76
73
71
68
69
72
76
81
80
70
77
74
73
71
73
67
69
74
79
74
80
73
73
74
74
72
73
75
70
68
81
82
80
87
75
79
76
75
n/a
74
72
78
71
74
80
64
77
73
73
74
n/a
73
71
76
77
76
76
75
69
74
70
76
n/a
73
71
76
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
51
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
33
34
35
39
43
32
35
31
33
23
26
45
26
38
20
36
39
36
44
37
41
36
35
40
37
36
38
51
49
36
48
41
53
45
32
45
9
17
12
12
12
16
17
18
16
6
10
11
10
9
13
3
16
8
4
4
5
8
4
5
6
8
6
2
4
6
4
4
5
4
9
6
7
5
5
3
4
3
6
5
5
11
2
7
5
3
11
6
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
12
4
2
10
3
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Customer Service Rating
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City 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: 64 Councils asked group: 14
52
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
79*
77
77
70
67*
65*
63*
Via website
In person
By telephone
By email
By social media
By text message
In writing
68
75
73
66
79
-
72
85
80
72
69
62
-
68
84
78
75
80
59
-
62
73
82
79
75
86
-
75
68
75
75
66
78
75
65
71
76
74
74
82
49
75
2018 Customer Service Rating
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City 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: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.*Caution: small sample size < n=30
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
53
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Customer Service Rating
28
47
36
26
14
16
52
35
44
51
49
59
46
12
7
8
10
17
41
9
2
4
5
14
11
9
5
9
10
8
3
6
9
Via website*
In person
By telephone
By email
By social media*
By text message*
In writing*
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City 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: 21 Councils asked group: 6*Caution: small sample size < n=30
55
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Council direction
Most satisfied with council direction
Least satisfied with council direction
• 65% stayed about the same, down 4 points on 2017
• 17% improved, down 1 point on 2017
• 14% deteriorated, up 6 points on 2017
• Aged 18-34 years
• Aged 35-49 years
Improvement• 43% a lot of room for improvement
• 46% little room for improvement
• 7% not much room for improvement
Direction headed• 66% right direction (21% definitely and 45% probably)
• 23% wrong direction (13% probably and 10% definitely)
Rates vs services trade-off • 32% prefer rate rise, down 2 points on 2017
• 49% prefer service cuts, up 2 points on 2017
56
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Overall Direction
60
56
54
53
53
52
52
52
51
47
47
45
18-34
North
Metro
65+
South
Men
State-wide
Kingston
Women
Central
50-64
35-49
62
57
54
53
58
56
53
55
55
51
50
55
59
58
55
51
52
54
51
54
55
54
53
55
68
62
56
56
63
58
53
58
58
48
58
50
69
56
n/a
57
60
55
53
57
59
55
50
50
56
60
n/a
62
58
56
53
57
58
52
57
55
55
53
n/a
56
57
51
52
54
56
51
53
51
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
57
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
17
18
19
23
22
23
18
19
19
23
13
17
20
14
25
10
13
20
65
69
62
64
65
63
66
60
64
65
63
66
61
68
64
69
63
61
14
8
11
8
8
10
11
15
11
11
18
12
16
13
6
19
19
15
4
6
8
4
5
4
5
5
6
1
5
5
3
5
6
2
4
5
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
2018 Overall Direction
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14
58
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
43
39
37
41
39
38
44
36
32
51
42
40
45
33
43
49
49
46
48
51
48
53
52
45
51
56
40
46
47
46
56
48
37
42
7
7
6
8
4
7
7
7
7
6
8
8
6
6
8
9
5
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
4
2
3
1
4
2
1
2
4
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say
2018 Room for Improvement
Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Kingston City Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4 Councils asked group: 2
59
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
21
22
24
25
29
24
17
20
24
16
25
25
17
27
18
22
17
45
53
49
53
51
53
47
47
52
44
41
46
44
52
44
37
45
13
7
7
6
5
7
14
11
10
16
13
10
17
14
13
14
13
10
7
9
8
7
9
11
9
7
12
10
12
9
2
13
16
11
11
12
11
8
9
7
11
13
8
12
12
7
14
6
11
12
15
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
%Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say
2018 Future Direction
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: 9 Councils asked group: 3
60
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
9
8
14
11
14
12
10
9
10
6
11
8
11
7
9
11
6
7
24
26
23
28
28
26
23
23
23
24
22
25
29
18
30
24
17
22
24
25
19
18
21
18
25
24
25
23
22
27
22
26
27
22
26
22
25
22
24
27
22
26
25
24
23
26
23
25
24
25
22
21
28
29
19
19
20
15
15
18
17
19
19
20
22
15
14
23
12
23
23
19
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Rate Rise v Service Cut
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: 15 Councils asked group: 4
62
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Note: Website and text message formats again did not rate as highly as other modes of communication, although
further analysis is recommended to understand the demographic preference profiles of the various different forms of
communication.
Greatest change since
2017 • Newsletter sent via mail (-4)
Overall preferred forms of
communication
Preferred forms of
communication among
over 50s
Preferred forms of
communication among
under 50s
• Newsletter sent via email (32%)
• Newsletter sent via email (32%)
• Newsletter sent via email (31%)
63
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
38
34
30
27
3132
15
1210
910 10
2
6
10
21
45
64
1 1 1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2018 Best Form
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Text
Message
Council
Newsletter as
Local Paper
Insert
Advertising
in a Local
Newspaper
Can’t
Say
?Other
%
Council
Website
Q13. If Kingston City 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: 26 Councils asked group: 6
64
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Under 50s Best Form
37
35
3031
3031
13
8 87 7
8
2
8
14
21
56
9
5
1 1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
%
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Text
Message
Council
Newsletter as
Local Paper
Insert
Advertising
in a Local
Newspaper
?Council
WebsiteCan’t
Say
Other
Q13. If Kingston City 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: 26 Councils asked group: 6
65
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Over 50s Best Form
40
34
31
23
3132
1816
1311
1413
2 2
5
21
32 2
12
1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
%
Council
Newsletter as
Local Paper
Insert
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Text
Message
Advertising
in a Local
Newspaper
?Council
WebsiteCan’t
Say
Other
Q13. If Kingston City 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: 26 Councils asked group: 6
67
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance
79
78
77
76
75
75
74
74
73
72
72
69
50-64
65+
Women
South
Central
Kingston
35-49
State-wide
North
Men
Metro
18-34
77
79
77
73
74
74
75
74
76
71
72
67
76
72
73
70
73
72
73
75
72
70
73
68
79
73
74
73
69
71
67
74
70
67
72
67
73
71
71
69
67
69
70
74
71
68
n/a
64
74
74
70
72
68
70
71
73
69
70
n/a
63
75
74
73
70
74
73
75
73
74
72
n/a
67
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
68
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
34
32
26
23
20
22
26
30
26
29
36
35
29
38
29
32
41
36
34
37
40
44
44
44
42
40
41
40
30
34
35
33
23
38
37
41
26
23
28
24
29
27
28
24
27
24
25
28
27
25
38
23
21
19
4
6
4
8
6
5
2
4
5
3
6
2
6
1
4
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
4
1
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6
69
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance
57
57
57
56
56
55
55
54
54
52
51
47
65+
Metro
18-34
North
Women
South
State-wide
50-64
Kingston
Men
Central
35-49
56
57
68
62
62
59
55
51
59
56
57
58
56
58
52
58
58
52
54
55
55
52
56
57
60
58
61
62
61
63
56
61
60
59
54
57
57
n/a
65
61
61
61
57
62
60
59
59
58
63
n/a
58
59
60
59
57
57
58
57
56
57
59
n/a
64
61
61
62
57
56
60
59
57
58
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
70
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
9
8
7
9
9
7
10
8
9
8
6
12
6
11
10
4
12
10
28
34
27
36
37
34
34
30
29
29
25
29
28
27
28
28
27
27
32
34
38
30
31
33
36
32
32
38
35
23
35
29
36
25
30
36
16
11
13
10
11
9
12
15
13
14
16
18
17
16
18
19
15
13
7
3
4
4
3
5
2
7
5
4
9
9
8
7
2
15
10
3
8
11
12
11
9
11
7
9
11
7
9
9
5
11
6
9
7
10
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14
71
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Lobbying Importance
71
69
68
68
67
67
67
67
67
66
66
64
Women
65+
State-wide
South
North
Kingston
50-64
Central
35-49
18-34
Metro
Men
72
68
69
70
67
70
72
71
69
69
67
66
68
65
69
64
67
66
69
67
67
64
68
64
71
65
69
69
72
68
74
64
66
69
67
65
69
62
70
64
72
66
70
63
66
67
n/a
63
71
66
70
68
66
67
71
65
65
63
n/a
62
72
66
70
69
69
69
71
70
73
66
n/a
66
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
72
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
22
24
17
24
19
21
20
23
21
19
22
25
18
26
18
24
23
24
38
38
39
36
40
39
44
37
36
43
36
35
31
43
40
33
38
40
28
26
34
28
29
25
25
27
29
26
29
28
35
20
30
29
25
25
8
8
6
8
6
10
8
8
9
6
7
10
9
6
7
8
7
8
3
2
2
2
4
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
5
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
4
2
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Lobbying Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7
73
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Lobbying Performance
58
57
56
56
54
54
53
53
53
52
50
49
18-34
North
Metro
65+
Women
State-wide
Kingston
Men
South
Central
35-49
50-64
70
60
56
56
62
54
59
57
59
59
57
53
54
59
56
58
57
53
55
53
53
53
56
51
60
57
58
63
61
55
59
57
64
54
55
60
67
57
n/a
57
61
56
60
58
64
56
53
59
58
60
n/a
63
59
55
59
59
59
56
60
58
58
56
n/a
57
55
55
55
55
52
56
51
54
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
74
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
3
6
4
10
6
6
6
5
5
2
2
4
3
2
1
5
5
26
27
19
27
29
30
23
24
24
30
29
20
27
25
38
23
15
24
31
27
35
28
27
30
34
32
31
27
27
38
35
27
27
36
33
29
11
7
9
11
9
10
14
13
10
11
11
11
11
11
6
12
15
13
5
3
2
4
3
2
3
5
4
1
8
4
6
4
4
7
7
1
25
30
30
20
26
22
21
20
26
28
24
23
18
31
25
22
24
27
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Lobbying Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14
75
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Community Decisions Made Importance
81
80
79
79
79
79
79
78
78
77
77
75
Women
State-wide
Metro
South
65+
18-34
Central
Kingston
35-49
50-64
North
Men
82
79
79
81
80
82
81
81
80
79
81
79
78
80
79
80
77
81
80
79
78
78
76
79
84
80
80
82
80
86
80
82
79
84
85
80
79
79
n/a
75
78
80
79
78
75
80
81
76
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
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
76
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
38
41
36
43
34
39
38
29
42
41
32
44
39
40
37
36
39
41
45
42
46
42
42
50
33
38
42
37
36
38
38
46
18
13
14
12
15
15
16
20
17
18
19
17
23
16
17
15
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
4
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Community Decisions Made Importance
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 Councils asked group: 6
77
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Community Decisions Made Performance
61
58
56
56
55
54
53
53
50
50
48
46
18-34
Metro
North
Women
65+
State-wide
South
Kingston
Central
Men
50-64
35-49
70
58
64
62
59
54
60
60
58
59
52
58
61
59
62
59
60
54
55
58
59
58
55
58
57
59
58
59
59
55
62
58
54
57
60
58
63
n/a
57
63
61
57
63
60
60
58
58
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
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
78
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
6
9
6
9
6
6
8
3
5
9
5
6
14
1
4
4
28
31
35
31
37
30
32
33
27
26
26
30
35
27
23
27
31
33
30
35
32
34
32
29
27
37
33
29
23
30
33
40
13
11
7
10
9
14
10
13
15
12
14
13
10
14
17
13
9
2
6
5
2
7
5
3
11
10
12
6
7
14
11
2
13
14
16
10
13
9
13
19
15
7
10
16
12
14
12
14
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Community Decisions Made Performance
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: 64 Councils asked group: 14
79
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance
80
79
78
77
76
76
76
76
75
75
75
71
State-wide
65+
Metro
50-64
South
35-49
Women
Kingston
North
Men
Central
18-34
78
81
77
76
77
82
77
77
75
77
79
68
78
77
76
76
76
78
77
76
72
75
80
73
76
76
75
76
77
75
79
76
74
73
75
76
77
77
n/a
74
70
75
74
73
73
71
76
66
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
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
80
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
32
30
29
31
28
38
33
29
29
38
29
35
25
32
35
37
43
51
51
46
42
44
46
46
47
37
46
40
44
42
42
44
20
16
15
16
24
15
18
18
20
22
21
19
21
23
20
16
2
3
3
5
4
2
2
2
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance
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: 17 Councils asked group: 7
81
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance
74
70
70
69
69
69
68
68
68
67
66
53
18-34
Men
North
South
Kingston
50-64
Central
Women
Metro
35-49
65+
State-wide
70
67
69
63
67
66
71
67
66
65
69
53
69
66
68
66
67
67
68
68
67
64
68
54
69
70
71
66
68
69
68
67
69
67
69
55
77
69
67
71
68
66
66
67
n/a
63
66
55
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
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
82
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
22
18
18
19
20
11
20
21
20
26
25
20
30
20
23
14
43
45
47
45
48
31
44
45
46
39
41
45
40
43
44
45
23
26
24
25
20
28
23
24
24
20
24
22
19
23
19
30
9
9
7
6
7
17
8
6
8
12
8
10
8
8
12
8
2
2
4
3
4
12
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance
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: 64 Councils asked group: 14
83
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Informing Community Importance
80
79
78
76
75
75
75
75
74
73
73
73
18-34
Women
South
Kingston
North
65+
State-wide
Central
50-64
Metro
35-49
Men
75
78
77
78
79
80
74
77
79
73
77
77
78
76
70
74
76
73
76
75
75
74
68
71
79
78
76
75
75
73
75
73
78
73
71
72
72
76
73
74
75
76
75
73
76
n/a
72
71
71
77
74
74
74
76
75
72
75
n/a
73
70
74
78
77
75
75
76
75
73
76
n/a
74
72
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
84
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
35
35
29
32
25
25
32
32
29
28
34
42
31
39
46
29
33
31
38
44
43
42
48
48
41
41
41
46
39
33
36
40
31
41
39
44
21
18
22
22
23
23
21
22
24
26
19
19
25
17
21
24
21
17
5
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
7
6
7
3
2
7
5
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Informing Community Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8
85
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Informing Community Performance
61
61
60
60
60
59
59
59
59
58
57
55
South
Metro
50-64
65+
18-34
State-wide
Men
Kingston
Women
North
Central
35-49
59
61
54
60
67
59
61
61
61
63
62
61
55
63
57
61
61
59
56
59
61
61
61
56
66
64
65
66
56
61
61
62
62
59
58
62
65
n/a
62
64
65
62
60
63
67
61
63
62
63
n/a
63
69
61
61
61
63
65
61
64
62
66
n/a
58
64
66
60
64
63
62
60
62
62
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
86
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
9
12
9
14
14
12
16
11
12
8
6
12
9
9
10
4
13
9
40
36
37
37
43
39
37
36
37
42
38
39
42
38
44
38
39
37
31
34
33
32
26
34
31
31
31
26
34
32
30
32
27
38
25
33
13
8
13
11
12
11
13
13
12
16
15
10
11
15
16
12
13
13
5
5
4
4
3
1
2
5
4
5
4
5
6
3
4
7
6
2
2
5
5
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
5
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Informing Community Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9
87
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance
79
79
78
78
78
76
76
76
76
75
73
70
65+
Metro
Women
50-64
State-wide
35-49
North
Central
Kingston
South
Men
18-34
81
78
80
80
77
80
77
78
78
79
75
72
76
78
80
79
77
77
76
79
78
78
75
79
78
77
80
80
77
74
72
77
76
78
71
73
79
n/a
79
76
77
78
81
75
76
74
73
74
79
n/a
79
79
78
81
78
75
77
79
75
72
79
n/a
79
79
77
79
77
78
77
77
75
72
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
88
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
30
34
34
30
30
33
29
35
36
31
30
29
23
37
23
29
33
37
45
43
45
47
49
46
52
43
44
44
46
45
49
41
40
49
47
44
22
21
19
19
17
19
18
18
17
24
22
21
24
20
31
20
18
18
2
1
1
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance
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: 21 Councils asked group: 6
89
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance
70
68
68
68
67
67
66
66
65
64
61
58
18-34
35-49
Central
Men
50-64
Kingston
South
Women
North
Metro
65+
State-wide
72
65
67
68
61
66
63
64
67
62
64
57
64
60
63
61
63
63
60
64
67
63
66
57
71
70
67
68
63
68
69
67
67
64
66
58
71
64
64
67
63
65
68
64
63
n/a
62
58
71
63
66
66
61
65
64
64
65
n/a
66
58
69
66
67
69
61
66
67
63
62
n/a
67
57
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 30 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
90
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
18
16
14
21
17
19
16
14
18
15
20
18
21
15
22
16
21
12
44
45
44
42
41
42
43
34
39
46
45
42
42
46
43
51
40
41
27
28
26
25
30
23
29
28
26
28
23
30
26
28
28
24
28
28
9
9
9
9
9
13
11
14
11
9
10
9
9
9
7
8
9
13
2
2
6
2
3
3
1
7
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance
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: 30 Councils asked group: 7
91
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Traffic Management Importance
78
77
77
76
76
75
75
75
74
73
73
72
65+
35-49
Women
Metro
North
Kingston
South
Central
State-wide
Men
18-34
50-64
78
78
79
76
80
78
78
76
72
77
77
76
77
73
78
75
74
74
73
77
72
71
74
74
77
72
76
74
74
74
74
72
71
71
72
74
74
67
76
n/a
77
73
68
75
70
69
77
73
77
74
76
n/a
74
74
73
74
72
72
69
76
76
75
79
n/a
71
75
76
77
73
71
72
77
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
92
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
32
36
30
28
24
25
32
31
34
33
31
33
27
37
27
31
32
40
40
43
45
45
49
49
43
40
42
42
42
37
44
37
42
46
33
37
23
15
17
22
21
19
19
22
20
19
22
26
22
23
27
21
23
18
3
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
2
4
2
1
7
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Traffic Management Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6
93
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Traffic Management Performance
66
64
60
58
57
57
56
55
55
55
55
52
18-34
North
Women
Kingston
Metro
State-wide
65+
Central
South
Men
35-49
50-64
61
54
57
56
56
59
57
58
55
55
53
51
53
58
57
56
56
59
57
53
57
55
61
53
71
65
62
64
57
60
64
59
67
66
58
62
68
62
65
63
n/a
60
61
63
64
61
61
59
63
65
62
62
n/a
60
60
61
60
61
63
60
60
59
57
57
n/a
58
58
52
59
56
54
54
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
94
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
10
8
10
14
13
12
7
10
10
15
8
8
7
13
16
6
11
8
38
38
35
45
45
41
36
36
37
43
37
34
37
38
52
36
25
33
29
29
28
24
23
30
34
30
29
24
29
34
29
29
15
32
34
37
15
16
15
11
13
12
16
15
15
11
17
16
17
13
13
20
14
13
6
8
8
4
4
3
4
7
7
5
7
7
7
5
4
4
13
6
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Traffic Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 6
95
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Parking Importance
78
76
75
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
71
71
71
71
65+
Women
Central
South
Kingston
Metro
Household user
35-49
50-64
Personal user
18-34
State-wide
North
Men
77
75
73
72
72
73
n/a
73
74
n/a
66
70
71
69
75
76
72
73
72
72
n/a
74
75
n/a
66
70
72
69
75
74
71
73
72
72
n/a
72
69
n/a
72
70
71
69
75
72
72
70
70
n/a
n/a
70
68
n/a
68
70
69
68
77
74
70
72
71
n/a
n/a
72
73
n/a
64
71
69
67
73
72
70
72
71
n/a
n/a
70
72
n/a
69
71
71
69
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
96
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
31
26
25
27
24
22
21
27
29
23
32
35
26
35
31
25
31
38
30
31
39
42
44
39
41
45
46
39
40
47
41
30
38
39
34
44
36
40
38
38
26
27
25
30
28
27
26
27
25
23
23
30
31
21
27
31
28
17
27
26
3
5
4
4
6
6
4
6
4
5
1
3
3
2
4
1
3
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2018 Parking Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7
97
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Parking Performance
59
57
57
56
56
56
56
55
55
54
53
53
53
49
18-34
50-64
North
Women
Personal user
State-wide
Household user
Metro
Kingston
South
Central
Men
35-49
65+
60
54
58
58
n/a
55
n/a
53
57
55
57
55
58
52
59
56
61
60
n/a
56
n/a
54
57
53
56
54
57
55
62
63
61
60
n/a
57
n/a
55
60
64
55
61
61
55
66
56
58
61
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
61
63
61
61
62
58
61
60
59
60
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
59
60
58
59
58
54
65
58
58
60
n/a
56
n/a
n/a
60
62
60
61
60
57
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
98
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
5
10
8
12
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
5
4
6
4
6
10
2
6
6
39
34
39
37
43
40
40
35
34
36
41
38
36
41
47
37
39
32
41
40
32
32
32
32
32
30
33
31
32
35
29
33
34
30
34
30
27
36
30
31
16
15
14
14
11
13
12
15
15
12
21
15
18
15
13
20
13
19
17
17
7
6
6
3
4
4
3
8
8
8
7
8
7
7
2
8
9
10
6
6
1
3
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Parking Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6
99
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Law Enforcement Importance
75
75
75
73
72
71
71
71
71
70
67
64
Women
18-34
65+
Metro
South
50-64
Kingston
Central
State-wide
North
Men
35-49
76
74
77
72
73
72
74
73
71
76
72
73
71
62
71
71
67
70
68
70
70
68
65
71
75
73
73
72
72
74
72
71
71
74
69
70
74
72
71
n/a
70
70
70
69
70
71
65
66
77
70
73
n/a
77
73
73
69
71
70
68
74
73
71
70
n/a
71
72
71
68
70
73
68
70
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
100
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
28
31
22
28
23
30
24
27
30
27
27
28
20
35
39
17
26
28
38
39
37
41
42
38
42
37
39
36
39
39
41
35
32
36
37
49
26
25
32
23
26
26
26
27
24
29
23
26
28
24
19
33
34
18
5
4
5
5
8
4
7
6
6
6
7
4
8
3
7
8
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Law Enforcement Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8
101
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Law Enforcement Performance
70
66
66
66
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
60
18-34
Central
Men
35-49
Kingston
Metro
North
State-wide
South
Women
65+
50-64
69
68
63
64
65
64
61
64
65
67
64
61
67
67
59
66
64
64
65
63
60
69
61
60
68
66
66
68
67
66
64
66
70
68
65
65
75
69
66
65
67
n/a
66
66
67
69
61
66
65
65
62
62
64
n/a
64
65
63
66
67
65
71
65
65
66
66
n/a
67
65
67
68
65
61
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
102
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
12
14
13
17
13
11
13
12
12
12
13
11
15
9
17
12
11
8
38
38
36
39
44
45
39
39
39
36
42
35
39
37
38
40
33
39
26
25
29
26
25
22
29
25
24
25
20
33
30
22
23
20
33
30
7
6
6
6
5
7
5
8
7
8
8
4
6
7
2
7
8
10
3
4
4
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
5
1
15
13
13
10
11
11
13
12
14
16
15
13
7
22
18
18
10
11
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Law Enforcement Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9
103
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Family Support Importance
79
77
75
75
74
74
74
74
72
72
71
68
Women
18-34
North
Metro
South
35-49
Kingston
State-wide
Central
65+
50-64
Men
78
73
78
73
74
73
74
73
70
74
75
70
80
81
74
73
75
76
75
73
76
73
69
70
80
77
74
72
77
76
76
73
75
72
76
71
78
79
79
n/a
75
78
75
72
72
72
71
72
77
78
74
n/a
75
73
74
73
72
72
72
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
104
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
30
29
30
31
28
30
30
32
31
27
31
21
38
35
32
26
24
41
41
45
44
49
44
40
40
37
41
43
41
41
40
41
43
39
23
25
18
20
18
19
23
22
26
25
18
29
17
19
21
24
27
5
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
2
4
7
7
3
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
4
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Family Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7
105
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Family Support Performance
70
70
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
67
66
35-49
Central
Women
Kingston
18-34
Metro
North
South
65+
Men
50-64
State-wide
71
68
72
70
70
68
72
70
74
69
66
67
70
67
67
68
68
69
72
65
70
69
62
66
65
66
71
69
71
68
70
70
73
67
70
67
68
65
71
69
69
n/a
68
73
72
67
69
68
72
69
68
68
68
n/a
67
68
68
68
65
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
106
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
11
14
12
14
11
12
11
10
12
10
11
9
13
14
13
8
8
32
33
30
34
37
33
31
29
28
36
30
37
27
30
40
27
29
20
19
22
22
20
26
21
20
24
19
18
21
19
23
15
21
21
4
2
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
3
5
5
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
33
31
31
27
27
26
32
37
32
32
35
28
37
28
27
41
40
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Family Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8
107
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Elderly Support Importance
84
84
81
80
79
79
79
79
79
78
78
75
65+
Women
Central
Kingston
State-wide
South
35-49
North
Metro
50-64
18-34
Men
83
82
80
79
78
79
82
78
77
81
71
76
80
78
80
77
78
74
78
77
78
79
72
75
79
85
80
80
79
81
81
80
78
83
78
75
80
81
79
79
79
77
80
83
n/a
79
78
77
81
81
79
79
79
80
79
76
n/a
81
76
76
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
108
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
39
34
31
40
36
33
38
36
37
41
39
31
47
35
38
38
47
42
48
47
41
46
49
43
44
42
45
39
44
40
40
44
41
43
16
14
17
18
15
13
16
16
18
12
19
20
12
25
14
16
8
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Elderly Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8
109
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Elderly Support Performance
71
70
70
69
68
67
67
67
66
65
65
61
18-34
Central
65+
Women
State-wide
Kingston
North
Metro
Men
50-64
South
35-49
69
68
71
68
68
68
71
67
69
66
66
65
60
67
74
65
68
66
68
69
68
64
64
66
65
65
78
69
69
69
69
69
69
71
73
65
75
69
74
72
70
71
71
n/a
71
71
73
65
67
68
73
69
69
69
70
n/a
68
70
68
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
110
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
11
12
12
16
16
14
14
10
9
14
11
9
14
15
6
9
15
26
31
27
35
35
34
32
27
31
28
22
31
22
27
19
23
37
21
21
21
19
15
20
19
18
24
15
26
24
19
17
23
22
24
4
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
36
31
34
25
28
27
29
40
33
38
36
32
40
37
46
41
20
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Elderly Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9
111
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance
78
77
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
72
72
71
Women
35-49
Central
18-34
Kingston
65+
South
North
Metro
State-wide
Men
50-64
77
73
73
74
73
75
73
74
71
71
69
71
77
74
74
76
74
72
73
74
73
73
71
72
80
74
75
77
75
71
76
73
74
73
69
76
79
74
75
78
75
73
74
75
n/a
72
70
73
77
71
72
73
72
75
73
71
n/a
73
67
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
112
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
30
28
26
31
26
24
27
29
24
34
31
22
37
29
34
28
28
42
41
45
41
49
46
41
42
50
40
38
46
38
43
41
36
46
23
23
22
21
20
25
24
23
21
20
27
26
20
25
20
27
20
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
3
2
4
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6
113
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance
65
63
62
62
62
62
61
61
61
61
60
60
18-34
Women
Central
North
Kingston
65+
South
Men
Metro
State-wide
35-49
50-64
65
62
62
65
64
66
65
65
62
61
63
61
62
63
64
67
62
68
57
62
62
61
61
57
64
65
58
66
64
67
66
62
63
62
61
65
65
63
62
62
64
68
67
65
n/a
64
59
65
65
63
65
65
64
66
63
65
n/a
62
61
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
114
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
7
6
7
8
11
8
6
6
8
6
7
5
9
14
3
4
6
24
27
24
30
25
28
25
23
26
27
20
27
21
26
22
18
29
25
23
22
24
24
24
23
23
21
20
34
30
21
21
27
23
29
6
4
5
5
3
3
6
5
9
6
3
5
7
8
5
4
7
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
37
39
41
32
34
35
38
43
35
39
36
32
42
30
43
49
30
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7
115
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Recreational Facilities Importance
76
75
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
72
71
70
65
35-49
65+
Central
Personal user
Household user
State-wide
North
Women
50-64
Metro
Kingston
Men
South
18-34
76
76
74
76
76
72
73
74
73
73
74
74
74
70
72
71
72
n/a
n/a
73
68
73
73
73
71
70
73
69
72
69
72
n/a
n/a
72
70
72
75
72
71
69
70
67
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
72
69
72
72
n/a
70
68
71
68
75
72
74
73
74
72
71
74
74
n/a
72
71
72
68
74
74
73
75
74
72
71
73
75
n/a
72
72
73
67
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
116
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
24
25
19
20
18
24
23
25
23
24
28
20
21
27
15
33
27
22
27
27
44
49
50
46
51
46
46
46
48
44
44
44
48
40
40
42
41
53
46
45
26
22
27
29
24
25
26
25
25
30
22
28
25
28
35
22
27
20
24
24
4
4
3
4
6
4
4
3
3
1
5
6
4
4
10
3
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2018 Recreational Facilities Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9
117
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Recreational Facilities Performance
75
75
75
74
74
73
73
73
72
72
72
71
70
69
35-49
Personal user
South
Household user
Metro
65+
Men
Kingston
Women
50-64
North
Central
18-34
State-wide
76
78
77
78
73
79
76
76
76
72
75
76
76
70
72
n/a
71
n/a
73
72
70
71
71
68
71
70
70
69
77
n/a
79
n/a
74
75
73
75
77
78
73
72
72
70
69
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
76
74
74
73
75
72
70
74
71
72
76
74
76
n/a
78
73
74
74
74
69
77
72
70
73
75
74
74
n/a
75
73
73
74
70
71
75
76
70
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
118
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
22
30
23
29
26
27
24
22
26
21
21
25
23
22
15
29
25
21
26
26
48
43
43
46
46
46
50
42
45
49
49
44
49
47
50
48
42
49
49
49
19
19
23
18
20
20
17
22
20
19
21
17
21
18
23
12
24
19
16
17
5
3
8
3
4
5
5
7
4
6
4
5
3
6
6
4
5
3
5
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
2
3
2
3
4
5
4
3
8
3
6
6
4
3
7
3
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Recreational Facilities Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10
119
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Public Areas Importance
75
74
74
74
74
73
73
72
72
72
71
65
65+
35-49
50-64
State-wide
Metro
Women
North
Kingston
Central
South
Men
18-34
74
76
72
74
75
78
73
75
76
75
72
78
73
76
75
74
74
75
71
73
74
74
71
68
74
74
79
73
73
76
72
73
74
73
71
68
74
70
73
73
n/a
72
72
71
70
70
69
67
75
75
76
74
n/a
76
75
74
73
75
72
71
77
77
73
73
n/a
76
76
74
72
74
72
69
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
120
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
23
28
21
23
18
24
23
26
25
23
19
27
21
25
17
24
26
25
47
47
53
48
48
51
52
46
48
52
53
38
47
47
37
52
48
53
26
23
23
27
32
22
23
24
24
22
25
31
28
25
38
21
23
21
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
4
4
1
6
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Public Areas Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9
121
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Public Areas Performance
75
74
73
73
73
73
72
71
71
71
71
70
35-49
Men
Central
North
18-34
Metro
Kingston
State-wide
Women
65+
South
50-64
75
75
76
74
77
72
75
71
74
74
74
72
73
73
72
75
73
72
73
71
73
73
71
70
76
74
72
71
71
73
74
72
74
75
77
74
75
74
74
68
74
n/a
74
72
73
73
78
72
73
73
75
70
74
n/a
73
71
73
76
74
70
72
73
73
68
74
n/a
73
71
73
74
76
71
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
122
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
21
25
25
27
26
26
22
24
24
20
21
21
21
20
17
26
26
15
53
52
47
48
48
46
53
45
49
57
56
48
55
51
58
52
42
58
21
18
22
19
21
21
19
21
20
20
19
25
22
21
25
16
22
23
4
3
3
3
2
5
4
6
5
3
4
5
2
6
6
8
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Public Areas Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 10
123
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance
70
69
69
68
67
67
66
66
65
63
61
61
Women
50-64
Central
65+
Metro
35-49
Kingston
South
State-wide
North
Men
18-34
69
67
68
69
67
67
66
66
64
64
63
62
68
66
65
66
68
66
65
67
66
63
62
63
71
67
65
63
69
69
66
68
65
64
61
63
69
65
63
68
n/a
65
65
64
66
68
61
62
69
67
68
74
n/a
65
66
65
66
64
62
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
124
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
17
17
17
15
13
13
16
18
14
17
19
11
22
14
15
22
18
40
39
38
43
44
45
39
42
37
48
35
39
42
28
50
39
45
33
33
35
32
33
32
34
31
37
29
34
36
29
48
25
30
27
8
8
7
8
9
7
9
7
9
5
9
11
5
8
9
6
8
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8
125
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance
78
77
77
76
75
75
74
74
74
73
71
71
Women
35-49
65+
South
Metro
Kingston
Central
State-wide
50-64
North
Men
18-34
73
75
79
73
75
74
74
73
73
75
75
69
75
73
77
71
74
72
75
72
71
71
70
69
78
80
78
80
75
77
77
73
73
73
76
78
78
78
79
79
n/a
76
75
75
76
74
74
72
77
74
77
76
n/a
75
76
73
75
73
72
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
126
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
24
22
22
31
27
24
25
26
22
23
26
19
29
19
25
23
29
45
45
41
40
47
48
42
41
45
45
45
41
48
47
46
40
45
19
21
22
17
15
20
18
19
25
18
16
25
13
22
18
21
16
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
1
3
3
2
3
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
10
10
7
6
10
10
6
11
10
12
7
6
12
14
8
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
127
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Community Activities Importance
62
62
61
61
61
60
60
60
59
58
57
57
65+
Women
Metro
State-wide
Central
South
50-64
Kingston
18-34
35-49
Men
North
64
65
61
61
62
63
63
62
63
60
60
62
62
64
62
62
66
61
61
62
63
61
59
59
59
67
62
62
61
63
63
62
67
58
57
62
57
60
n/a
62
60
58
60
60
58
62
59
60
68
64
n/a
62
63
61
61
62
61
61
59
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
128
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
10
13
8
12
6
11
12
12
6
9
13
7
12
8
7
12
13
34
33
43
35
37
37
34
34
32
36
32
31
36
30
38
32
33
45
42
39
42
47
42
40
41
48
46
42
49
42
52
44
43
42
8
9
9
9
8
7
10
11
10
4
10
8
8
8
5
10
10
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
5
2
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Community Activities Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8
129
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Community Activities Performance
75
73
72
72
72
71
71
70
70
70
70
69
35-49
Central
Women
North
Kingston
50-64
Men
Metro
65+
18-34
South
State-wide
73
71
72
75
72
72
71
70
73
68
69
69
74
70
70
69
69
68
67
71
69
63
67
69
75
71
77
72
74
73
71
71
74
74
79
69
73
73
75
70
72
74
69
n/a
73
68
73
70
70
74
73
69
71
73
70
n/a
75
68
71
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
130
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
20
17
17
26
21
20
17
18
20
20
20
18
22
17
24
22
17
46
47
40
41
43
46
42
42
50
48
40
47
44
48
48
43
42
24
23
28
17
21
21
25
24
22
24
25
24
23
29
19
20
26
4
3
3
4
6
5
5
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
7
10
11
11
9
7
9
11
4
7
8
7
6
2
6
9
10
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Community Activities Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8
131
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Waste Management Importance
86
85
85
84
84
84
83
83
83
83
82
81
65+
Women
Central
35-49
North
Kingston
50-64
Metro
Men
South
18-34
State-wide
83
83
85
83
83
83
83
81
82
80
82
79
78
81
81
84
82
81
84
82
81
80
77
80
80
82
84
81
78
81
84
81
80
80
79
79
79
79
78
76
81
79
80
n/a
78
78
81
79
78
83
82
84
81
81
82
n/a
79
81
77
79
80
82
80
82
81
80
83
n/a
77
79
75
78
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
132
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
46
42
38
38
35
40
37
42
46
45
48
45
44
48
42
47
45
51
44
48
50
48
48
45
47
43
42
46
43
44
44
44
45
44
45
42
10
9
11
13
15
15
15
13
11
9
9
10
12
8
13
10
9
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Waste Management Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9
133
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Waste Management Performance
77
77
76
76
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
70
65+
Women
South
50-64
Kingston
18-34
Metro
Central
North
35-49
Men
State-wide
79
76
78
74
76
79
75
79
72
73
77
71
77
77
77
76
76
76
76
77
74
75
75
70
81
76
79
79
77
70
77
77
72
77
77
72
76
76
78
74
77
80
n/a
79
74
77
78
73
77
73
74
76
73
68
n/a
76
69
74
74
71
79
74
79
73
74
74
n/a
74
68
71
74
72
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
134
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
28
29
29
33
33
26
26
24
29
29
27
29
27
30
31
25
29
29
48
50
49
46
48
50
48
45
48
43
48
51
48
47
48
42
50
52
19
15
17
15
12
16
18
18
16
23
22
13
19
19
12
30
19
15
2
3
4
3
3
4
5
7
4
3
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Waste Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10
135
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance
66
60
59
59
58
58
58
58
58
58
57
54
State-wide
65+
50-64
Metro
South
35-49
Men
Kingston
Women
North
Central
18-34
67
61
61
60
60
63
61
61
62
60
64
61
67
57
55
60
57
63
56
59
61
57
62
58
67
58
62
59
60
58
54
58
62
55
57
56
67
61
59
n/a
58
63
57
59
62
60
60
54
67
62
61
n/a
60
61
58
60
63
64
58
58
66
59
65
n/a
60
58
58
59
61
57
60
57
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
136
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
12
12
8
9
9
9
10
21
12
13
10
13
13
11
6
14
16
13
28
36
35
30
36
37
32
36
30
26
30
27
27
28
26
25
29
32
42
37
39
46
38
40
39
31
39
39
44
42
41
44
47
45
37
38
15
13
13
11
13
10
13
9
14
20
11
15
15
14
22
12
11
13
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
5
2
3
2
4
6
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6
137
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance
61
60
60
59
59
59
58
58
58
57
57
56
18-34
State-wide
Metro
Women
South
Central
Kingston
65+
North
35-49
Men
50-64
65
61
60
63
59
59
60
59
64
59
58
57
63
60
62
62
58
58
59
58
60
55
55
58
62
61
62
64
66
57
61
61
58
60
57
61
64
62
n/a
62
62
62
61
61
57
60
59
57
61
62
n/a
62
61
62
60
63
58
59
59
61
67
62
n/a
60
61
57
58
58
58
52
56
56
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
138
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
4
6
5
11
7
6
8
10
8
3
5
4
5
3
4
3
5
4
32
31
28
28
32
34
25
33
28
30
33
34
30
34
46
26
26
28
32
32
33
31
27
34
36
31
31
32
31
34
35
29
23
37
33
36
10
8
8
8
9
7
11
10
9
8
13
7
12
8
15
8
8
7
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
2
3
3
2
2
1
5
2
20
21
24
19
23
17
20
12
22
24
18
19
17
23
12
24
23
22
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6
139
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Town Planning Importance
82
80
79
77
75
75
74
74
74
73
73
73
72
69
Personal user
Household user
50-64
Women
65+
Central
35-49
North
Kingston
South
State-wide
Metro
Men
18-34
79
80
78
75
81
75
73
70
73
72
72
73
70
62
n/a
n/a
75
73
74
71
72
69
71
74
73
72
70
65
n/a
n/a
79
74
77
76
68
69
72
71
72
72
70
66
n/a
n/a
76
70
73
77
69
70
70
64
72
n/a
69
63
n/a
n/a
75
71
72
72
69
66
69
68
73
n/a
66
60
n/a
n/a
79
73
75
71
77
69
71
73
72
n/a
70
58
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
140
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
28
27
25
25
21
20
25
27
27
26
30
28
23
33
20
29
39
28
41
38
40
39
40
40
41
39
41
40
40
44
39
38
41
40
36
42
39
44
41
40
26
22
27
25
25
30
22
24
24
27
22
29
31
21
32
28
18
22
12
17
2
6
4
3
5
6
8
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
3
4
6
4
3
3
4
2
6
3
4
3
8
2
4
4
4
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2018 Town Planning Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4
141
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Town Planning Performance
54
53
52
52
51
51
50
50
50
50
48
48
39
38
State-wide
Metro
North
18-34
35-49
South
Women
Kingston
Men
65+
Central
50-64
Household user
Personal user
53
53
59
64
55
55
56
56
55
53
53
48
50
49
52
54
59
53
53
49
55
52
50
53
49
49
n/a
n/a
54
55
59
60
53
59
54
57
60
56
50
58
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
56
60
57
59
58
58
57
59
57
54
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
60
60
57
58
59
58
57
57
56
57
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
62
65
58
59
59
59
60
58
57
55
n/a
n/a
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
142
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
3
6
3
6
5
6
5
5
5
4
1
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
6
6
20
26
23
28
31
30
34
27
26
19
22
20
24
17
21
22
17
21
3
4
35
28
33
33
32
33
31
31
29
41
33
32
36
34
35
35
35
35
41
43
16
12
11
11
10
8
8
13
12
11
16
20
15
17
15
12
20
18
27
26
5
5
6
4
3
4
3
7
6
5
7
2
6
3
2
7
6
4
17
16
21
23
23
17
20
19
19
18
21
20
22
21
16
25
25
20
18
19
6
5
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user
Household user
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Town Planning Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 6
143
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance
78
77
76
76
74
74
74
73
72
71
71
68
65+
50-64
Central
Women
Metro
Kingston
35-49
South
Men
State-wide
North
18-34
82
83
76
77
76
76
73
77
74
72
73
67
76
79
73
72
74
72
74
74
73
71
71
64
78
80
75
76
74
73
74
72
69
71
71
63
72
74
73
73
n/a
71
71
66
69
71
74
67
73
75
73
71
n/a
69
68
71
67
71
65
63
79
77
73
76
n/a
74
79
75
72
71
74
64
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
144
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
30
33
28
29
22
21
28
26
32
23
36
29
28
32
23
30
35
34
38
37
40
37
42
43
44
39
38
43
35
39
37
40
30
38
40
46
25
23
26
27
26
26
21
25
22
28
21
27
25
25
35
26
20
15
3
3
5
6
6
6
5
6
5
3
4
2
6
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
4
2
4
1
5
2
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5
145
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance
54
53
53
52
51
50
50
49
49
46
46
41
18-34
North
Men
State-wide
Metro
35-49
Central
Kingston
65+
South
Women
50-64
68
62
55
51
49
55
55
56
53
52
57
44
48
53
46
50
50
48
42
47
49
46
48
42
63
61
58
54
53
50
47
56
53
58
53
55
64
53
54
53
n/a
52
52
55
49
60
56
51
59
61
61
55
n/a
67
51
60
50
64
59
57
63
60
59
54
n/a
57
56
57
53
56
55
52
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
146
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
4
9
5
6
5
8
7
5
5
3
5
5
4
4
4
6
4
4
22
24
18
28
26
31
30
24
25
27
24
17
29
16
30
20
11
25
31
27
28
32
25
28
28
27
27
34
27
33
32
30
29
35
28
31
15
11
14
10
11
9
10
13
14
11
16
17
14
16
10
16
20
17
9
6
11
6
5
4
5
8
9
6
9
10
7
11
8
8
12
9
18
23
25
18
29
20
20
23
21
19
19
18
14
23
19
16
25
15
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6
147
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance
80
79
76
74
74
73
73
73
73
71
70
68
18-34
Women
South
Metro
Kingston
State-wide
Central
North
35-49
65+
50-64
Men
74
77
73
73
74
72
74
76
75
73
74
70
76
76
73
74
75
73
76
75
75
73
74
73
77
77
75
74
75
73
77
73
76
69
79
73
78
78
72
n/a
74
73
74
76
75
70
72
70
76
77
74
n/a
74
72
74
75
77
73
72
71
70
76
74
n/a
71
71
69
72
73
70
73
67
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
148
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
33
30
32
32
29
30
25
31
32
25
34
39
21
45
43
31
29
29
36
42
43
40
43
44
43
39
40
45
34
32
41
32
34
39
36
36
22
21
19
23
23
21
25
23
22
25
21
21
27
18
19
21
23
25
5
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
4
4
6
5
6
4
2
4
7
7
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
3
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9
149
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance
66
64
64
63
63
63
63
63
63
62
61
60
18-34
Metro
South
Women
35-49
Kingston
State-wide
Central
Men
North
65+
50-64
63
64
63
61
62
62
64
60
63
62
64
58
69
64
62
67
64
65
63
65
64
69
65
61
64
65
68
64
63
65
64
64
66
62
68
66
66
n/a
68
64
63
63
64
63
62
58
62
62
62
n/a
68
67
69
67
64
69
67
64
71
69
63
n/a
66
64
65
64
64
65
65
63
67
62
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
150
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
8
7
9
11
9
13
11
10
10
6
8
9
8
8
15
3
6
6
39
35
44
38
42
42
40
37
38
44
34
41
40
39
40
45
34
35
31
31
29
30
27
24
28
30
28
29
35
27
34
27
29
32
29
32
7
7
6
5
7
5
7
8
7
9
5
8
5
9
8
6
10
5
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
14
18
10
14
11
14
12
12
14
10
16
13
11
16
6
13
19
18
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10
151
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Disaster Management Importance
81
81
80
79
77
77
76
76
74
74
72
71
State-wide
18-34
Metro
Women
South
North
35-49
Kingston
Central
65+
Men
50-64
80
81
77
81
81
78
78
79
77
79
77
77
80
78
76
82
75
78
77
77
79
79
72
73
80
81
77
83
79
76
73
77
75
77
71
77
80
81
n/a
82
76
81
73
76
73
74
71
77
80
81
n/a
81
78
75
72
76
75
79
71
74
80
78
n/a
79
78
76
73
77
75
79
74
77
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
152
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
40
41
38
38
40
41
38
48
45
35
38
47
33
47
50
38
35
36
31
38
39
37
32
32
35
33
32
39
32
23
34
28
27
35
28
32
20
15
13
18
19
18
18
14
17
15
22
23
25
16
13
21
25
24
5
4
5
4
6
7
6
3
4
5
6
4
5
5
7
3
6
4
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
5
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Disaster Management Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 4
153
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Disaster Management Performance
71
71
70
70
69
69
69
69
68
67
66
66
18-34
State-wide
Central
Women
Metro
South
35-49
Kingston
Men
65+
North
50-64
75
70
71
70
68
66
65
69
68
68
72
67
67
69
66
68
68
68
63
66
64
71
65
63
75
70
67
72
69
74
68
71
69
71
71
69
78
71
70
74
n/a
75
68
72
71
71
70
68
69
70
68
69
n/a
72
69
68
67
70
63
67
71
70
63
68
n/a
70
64
66
65
68
66
62
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
154
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
11
10
7
16
16
12
12
18
12
12
11
11
11
12
12
11
12
12
33
34
35
31
33
31
33
39
35
27
33
36
34
31
38
40
23
24
22
18
21
21
17
23
22
19
19
19
20
25
27
17
22
16
24
26
2
2
3
2
3
2
5
4
3
4
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
31
36
32
29
30
30
26
18
29
35
34
25
26
36
28
28
37
35
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Disaster Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4
155
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Population Growth Importance
81
79
78
78
78
77
77
77
77
76
75
73
Women
35-49
Metro
50-64
Central
South
State-wide
Kingston
65+
North
18-34
Men
77
78
75
79
77
75
76
77
77
79
73
76
75
74
75
72
73
69
76
72
74
76
70
70
76
73
74
79
75
76
75
74
74
70
70
71
74
70
n/a
78
72
67
75
70
69
73
66
67
72
65
n/a
74
70
70
75
69
73
67
67
66
75
74
n/a
75
74
74
75
73
72
71
72
71
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 12 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
156
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
42
39
30
30
25
26
28
39
41
39
44
42
32
51
35
48
46
40
31
35
38
41
38
38
42
36
36
35
27
33
35
28
34
26
30
35
19
19
22
22
26
25
21
18
17
17
21
17
25
13
23
19
16
16
5
5
7
5
7
7
5
4
3
7
4
5
7
4
4
5
5
7
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Population Growth Importance
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: 12 Councils asked group: 4
157
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Population Growth Performance
59
52
51
51
50
50
50
49
49
48
45
44
18-34
State-wide
Women
South
North
Metro
Kingston
Men
Central
65+
35-49
50-64
64
52
56
54
55
51
54
52
54
54
51
46
45
51
50
46
50
51
48
47
49
50
52
47
66
54
58
61
62
54
58
59
51
55
53
57
68
54
59
60
58
n/a
58
57
56
56
54
50
62
54
58
62
60
n/a
58
59
51
58
56
56
61
52
54
55
55
n/a
54
54
52
52
49
50
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 14 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
158
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
4
7
3
8
6
8
5
8
4
4
3
4
4
4
6
3
4
4
21
23
17
26
28
25
23
24
23
24
19
21
20
22
33
17
12
20
35
30
36
30
31
31
35
30
32
30
34
40
39
31
34
37
36
33
17
16
17
10
9
9
12
16
17
18
17
16
15
18
10
18
17
23
6
4
5
4
3
3
5
8
8
7
7
6
9
4
2
10
10
5
17
21
22
21
23
24
19
14
16
17
20
14
13
21
16
16
22
16
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Population Growth Performance
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: 14 Councils asked group: 5
159
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance
73
69
66
65
64
63
62
62
61
60
58
56
State-wide
65+
Women
North
50-64
South
Kingston
Metro
35-49
Central
Men
18-34
74
69
67
64
68
67
65
65
64
63
63
61
73
66
65
64
69
63
64
64
65
65
63
57
73
67
65
61
69
62
62
62
59
64
59
57
75
68
66
68
67
62
63
n/a
62
60
60
58
74
68
66
67
70
67
65
n/a
68
60
64
55
71
68
69
67
70
66
65
n/a
65
62
60
58
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
160
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
12
15
11
13
11
13
16
29
12
12
10
12
7
15
4
12
16
17
36
38
43
36
44
42
35
40
36
46
31
35
32
40
29
32
39
47
43
36
34
40
34
37
38
25
43
35
46
45
48
38
56
46
34
31
7
8
9
9
9
7
8
4
7
6
9
7
10
5
8
10
8
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
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
2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 1
161
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance
72
68
67
67
67
67
67
67
66
66
62
55
18-34
South
Men
Central
Kingston
Metro
Women
35-49
North
50-64
65+
State-wide
76
67
69
71
68
68
68
67
67
64
65
53
71
68
65
67
68
68
69
68
68
66
64
56
72
71
67
68
69
69
70
71
67
66
64
55
73
68
68
71
68
n/a
68
69
65
67
62
55
70
66
65
67
65
n/a
66
62
63
62
70
56
69
69
67
64
66
n/a
66
68
66
62
65
61
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.
162
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
16
17
14
19
20
13
17
10
16
14
15
17
16
15
17
21
19
6
45
47
52
45
45
49
44
34
45
48
43
46
45
46
57
35
42
47
29
22
21
24
24
25
26
29
29
27
30
28
29
28
23
28
26
37
7
7
7
8
7
7
9
16
7
9
6
6
7
7
2
11
10
6
1
2
3
2
3
4
2
9
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
4
4
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
5
2
2
4
1
3
2018 Kingston
2017 Kingston
2016 Kingston
2015 Kingston
2014 Kingston
2013 Kingston
2012 Kingston
State-wide
Metro
North
Central
South
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 1
164
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
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.
48%52%
Men
Women
10%
17%
28%19%
25%
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Gender Age
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14
167
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
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 Kingston City
Council 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
2012-2018 have been made throughout this report
as appropriate.
168
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Demographic
Actual
survey
sample
size
Weighted
base
Maximum
margin of error
at 95%
confidence
interval
Kingston City Council400 400 +/-4.9
Men180 194 +/-7.3
Women220 206 +/-6.6
North105 106 +/-9.6
Central149 152 +/-8.1
South146 142 +/-8.1
18-34 years52 112 +/-13.7
35-49 years94 112 +/-10.2
50-64 years111 77 +/-9.3
65+ years143 99 +/-8.2
The sample size for the 2018 State-wide Local Government
Community Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council was
400. 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
400 interviews is +/-4.9% 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 45.1% - 54.9%.
Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,
based on a population of 125,000 people aged 18 years or
over for Kingston City Council, according to ABS estimates.
169
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
All participating councils are listed in the State-wide
report published on the DELWP website. In 2018, 64 of
the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated 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. Accordingly, the council reports for the
community satisfaction survey provide analysis using
these standard council groupings. Please note that
councils participating across 2012-2018 vary slightly.
Council Groups
Kingston City Council is classified as a Metropolitan
council according to the following classification list:
➢ Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large
Rural & Small Rural
Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are:
Banyule, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater
Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham,
Maroondah, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse.
Wherever appropriate, results for Kingston City Council
for this 2018 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other
participating councils in the Metropolitan group and on
a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings
changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council
group results before that time can not be made within
the reported charts.
170
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Index Scores
Many 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 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
FACTORINDEX VALUE
Very good 9% 100 9
Good 40% 75 30
Average 37% 50 19
Poor 9% 25 2
Very poor 4% 0 0
Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE
60
171
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
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 36
Stayed the same 40% 50 20
Deteriorated 23% 0 0
Can’t say 1% --INDEX
SCORE 56
172
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a
particular service area. In this context, index scores
indicate:
a) how well council is seen to be performing in a
particular service area; or
b) the level of importance placed on a particular
service area.
For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be
categorised as follows:
INDEX
SCORE
Performance
implication
Importance
implication
75 – 100Council is performing
very well
in this service area
This service area is
seen to be
extremely important
60 – 75
Council is performing
well in this service area,
but there is room for
improvement
This service area is
seen to be
very important
50 – 60
Council is performing
satisfactorily in this
service area but needs
to improve
This service area is
seen to be
fairly important
40 – 50Council is performing
poorly
in this service area
This service area is
seen to be
somewhat important
0 – 40Council is performing
very poorly
in this service area
This service area is
seen to be
not that important
173
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
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.
174
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Core, Optional and Tailored Questions
Over and above necessary geographic and
demographic questions required to ensure sample
representativeness, a base set of questions for the
2018 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 2018 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had
the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their
council.
175
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Reporting
Every council that participated in the 2018 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
http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-
government/strengthening-councils/council-community-
satisfaction-survey.
176
J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council
Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all
councils participating in the CSS.
CSS: 2018 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 this will be specifically mentioned,
however not all significantly higher or lower results are
referenced in summary reporting.
Statewide 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.
Contact Us:
03 8685 8555
John Scales
Managing Director
Mark Zuker
Managing Director