2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report - Local … · coordinated approach allows for far more cost...
-
Upload
phungtuyen -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report - Local … · coordinated approach allows for far more cost...
LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey
2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report
Coordinated by THE department of ENVIRONMENT, Land, water and planning on behalf of Victorian councils
2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Background and objectives 4Survey methodology and sampling 5Further information 7Key findings and recommendations 8Summary of findings 20Positives and areas for improvement 34Detailed findings 35 Key core measure: Overall performance 36 Key core measure: Customer service 39 Key core measure: Council direction indicators 49 Communications 56Individual service areas 61 Community consultation and engagement 62 Lobbying on behalf of the community 66 Decisions made in the interest of the community 70 The condition of sealed local roads in your area 74 Informing the community 78 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area 82 Traffic management 86 Parking facilities 90
Contents
3J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Enforcement of local laws 94 Family support services 98 Elderly support services 102 Disadvantaged support services 106 Recreational facilities 110 The appearance of public areas 114 Art centres and libraries 118 Community and cultural activities 122 Waste management 126 Business and community development and tourism 130 Council’s general town planning policy 134 Planning and building permits 138 Environmental sustainability 142 Emergency and disaster management 146 Planning for population growth in the area 150 Roadside slashing and weed control 154 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area 158 Business and community development 162 Tourism development 166Detailed demographics 170Appendix: Further project information 177
Contents [CONT’D]
4J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.
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 councils throughout Victoria across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.
Background and objectives
5J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in each participating council area.
Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of each profile as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within councils, particularly younger people.
A total of n=27,907 completed interviews were achieved in State-wide. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2017.
The 2017 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:
Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of each council area.
Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.
Survey methodology and sampling
• 2016, n=28,108 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.• 2015, n=28,316 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=29,501 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.
6J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below:• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the councils.
Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2016. 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 2016.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING
54
57
58
65
50-64
35-49
Overall
18-34
Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)
Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may be found in Appendix B.
7J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in the Appendix, including: Background and objectives Margins of error Analysis and reporting Glossary of terms
ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.
Further information
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
64 6059 57 58 54
TOP 3 performing areas
Top 3 areas for improvement
73
71
71
Arts centres & libraries
Appearance of public areas
Waste management
79
44
7954
7853
-35 -25 -25
Unsealed roads
PerformanceImportance
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Net differential
State-wide
Inter-face
Small Rural
State-wide
Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.
Metro Regional Centres
Large Rural
10J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
The average overall performance index score of 59 for councils State-wide is in line with the 2016 result, however remains lower than the peak index score of 61 in 2014. Councils in the Metropolitan and Interface groups perform significantly higher (at the 95%
confidence interval) than the average for councils State-wide on the measure of overall performance (index scores of 64 and 60 respectively). Conversely, average ratings for councils in the Small Rural, Regional Centres and Large Rural groups are significantly lower than the State-wide average (index scores of 58, 57 and 54 respectively).
The youngest (aged 18 to 34 years) and oldest (aged 65+ years) resident cohorts have significantly more favourable impressions of council performance overall than average (index scores of 62 and 60 respectively). Those aged between these two groups rate overall performance significantly less favourable (index score of 57 among those aged 35 to 49 years and 55 among those aged 50 to 64 years).
There has been no significant change in performance index scores in the last year among demographic sub-groups. The exception is those aged 65+ years who rate overall performance a significant one index point higher than in 2016. Overall performance ratings among this cohort had been declining gradually from a high of 62 in 2014, however the 2017 result lifts the index score up from a low of 59 seen in 2016.
On average, Victorians are three times as likely to have a favourable impression (45% ‘very good’ or ‘good’) of councils’ overall performance than to have an unfavourable impression (15% ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’). A further 37% sit mid-scale providing councils an ‘average’ rating.
Overall performance
11J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Overview of core performance measures
Review of overall State-wide ratings for core performance measures (as shown on page 22) shows that performance ratings are stable or have increased by one or two index points compared to State-wide results in 2016. Average ratings for councils State-wide only declined on one measure, sealed local roads, in the past year. Ratings for making community decisions (index score of 54) and customer service (index
score of 69) remain unchanged from 2016 (as well as overall performance, discussed previously). State-wide average ratings for consultation and engagement (index score of 55, one point
higher than 2016), lobbying (index score of 54, one point higher than 2016), and overall council direction (index score of 53, two points higher than 2016) increased in the past year.
On the measure of overall council direction, the index score of 53 is equal to the peak rating seen on this measure across 2013 to 2015. This is the only core performance measure that has equaled previous peak ratings in 2017.
State-wide performance on sealed local roads (index score of 53) declined one index point in the past year. Ratings for the condition of sealed local roads is significantly lower than the State-wide average
for councils in the Small Rural and Large Rural groups (index scores of 50 and 43 respectively). Ratings are significantly higher for councils in the Metropolitan and Interface groups (index scores of 66 and 59 respectively).
In the past year, ratings declines on the measure of sealed local roads were significant among residents aged 18 to 34 and 65+ years, as well as men.
12J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Overview of core performance measures [CONT’D]
Average ratings on core measures for councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than averages for councils State-wide, while ratings for councils in the Large Rural group are significantly lower. This pattern is consistent across all core measures.
In summary, results for community consultation and engagement, advocacy and overall council direction all show significant improvement over the 2016 result. Conversely, there has been a decline in the result for sealed local roads. Council overall performance, customer service and decisions made in the interest of the community are on par with the 2016 results.
13J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
CUSTOMER contact and service
Almost three in five (59%) residents State-wide have had recent contact with their council. The main method of contacting councils is by telephone and in person (32% and 28%
respectively). This pattern has not changed over time, with telephone used more often than in person contact. These methods of contact remain well ahead of email (14%) which is used more frequently than contacting council in writing (11%).
Council residents aged 35 to 49 years have the most contact with their local councils (66%) while residents aged 18 to 34 years have the least contact (52%).
The customer service index of 69 is a positive result for councils State-wide. Customer service is one of the highest performing areas. Almost one third (30%) of residents rate councils’ customer service as ‘very good’, with a further
36% rating customer service as ‘good’, consistent with 2016. Men and residents aged 35 to 49 years are significantly less favourable in their impressions of
councils’ customer service (index scores of 66 and 68 respectively). Customer service ratings among both of these demographic sub-groups has been trending down from their respective peak ratings in 2014 (index scores of 70 and 71).
Women and residents aged 65+ years are significantly more favourable of councils’ customer service (index scores of 72 and 71).
14J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
CUSTOMER contact and service [CONT’D]
Among those whose most recent contact with their council was via email, customer service index scores have declined significantly in the last 12 months (index score of 65, down four points from 2016). This is an area to pay attention to among councils who wish to migrate a greater number
of service interactions to electronic communications. The opposite has occurred among those who most recently contacted their council by telephone
(index score of 73, up two points from 2016, a significant increase).
Newsletters, sent via mail (34%) or email (25%), are the preferred methods for councils to inform residents about news, information and upcoming events. The gap between these two methods of communication is reducing over time. Preference for receiving information via email is steadily increasing (from 18% in 2012). While preference for receiving information sent via mail remains strong, it has declined
considerably in the last year from a steady 39% across 2013 to 2016. Residents aged 50 years or younger prefer to receive a council newsletter via mail (32%) to
email (28%) by a small margin. Older residents (aged 50+ years) exhibit a greater preference for receiving a newsletter in the mail (37%) to email (21%).
15J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Areas where council is performing well
Art centres and libraries is the area where councils perform most strongly (index score of 73). Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point from 2016. Two-thirds of residents (66%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. It is however considered one of the least important service areas (importance index score of 64).
Another area where councils Overall are well regarded is the appearance of public areas. With a performance index score of 71, this service area is rated second highest. Seven in ten residents (71%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Parks and gardens (10%) and public areas (4%) are among the frequently mentioned best things
about living in Victoria’s councils. While not the most important council service, the appearance of public areas is still considered an
important council responsibility by residents State-wide (importance index score of 74).
Waste management (performance index score of 71) is another area where Councils are rated more highly compared to other service areas. Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point in the last year. Seven in ten residents (69%) rate councils’ performance in the area of waste management as
‘very good’ or ‘good’. This service area also has the second highest importance score (importance index of 79).
On each of these service areas, ratings for councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than averages for councils State-wide, while in the Large Rural group they are significantly lower.
16J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Areas in need of attention
The most significant decline in 2017 is a three point drop on the measure of slashing and weed control (index score of 53). Councils’ performance in this area is at the lowest level recorded (noting that only a subset of councils measure this service). Performance on this measure declined significantly across almost all demographic groups.
Residents aged 50 to 64 years are the exception, although ratings in this area are significantly lower than average.
Other services areas worthy of attention involve roads and parking. Impressions of the condition of sealed local roads (discussed previously), as well as parking facilities, are the two other service areas that exhibited significant declines (one index point) in performance index scores in the past year. Counter to the geographic trends, councils in the Metropolitan and Regional Centres group accrue
significantly lower average ratings in parking facilities than councils overall, while councils in the Small Rural, Large Rural and Interface group garner significantly higher ratings in this area.
Furthermore, with a performance index score of 44, the maintenance of unsealed roads is the lowest rated service area. Two in five residents (39%) rate Council performance in this service area as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. Councils in the Large Rural group rate on average significantly lower on this measure than councils
State-wide, while councils in the Regional Centres group rate significantly higher.
Roads are a priority area for residents, with sealed local roads (importance index score of 78) and unsealed roads (importance index score of 79) rating among the most important service areas.
17J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
If forced to choose, more residents prefer to see service cuts (50%) to maintain council rates at current levels over rate rises (31%) to improve local services. Over time, preference has been shifting toward ‘service cuts’. In 2012, 44% of residents
claimed to prefer service cuts to maintain council rates at current levels. The proportion of residents preferring service cuts has been trending up over time to 50% in 2017. This contrasts with the 40% of residents who in 2012 had a preference for rate rises to improve local services (compared to 31% currently).
Residents are almost three times as likely to ‘definitely prefer service cuts’ (27%) as they are to ‘definitely prefer rate rises’ (10%). The proportion of residents who ‘definitely prefer rate rises’ has changed little over time (from 11% in 2012). This contrasts with the proportion of residents who ‘definitely prefer service cuts’, which has steadily increased from 22% in 2012 to 27% currently.
On balance, more residents agree that the direction of councils’ overall performance has improved over the last 12 months (19%) compared to the proportion who believe it has deteriorated (13%). Further, residents State-wide are also more likely to agree that councils are heading in the ‘right’
direction (65%) than the ‘wrong’ direction (22%) (asked of a subset of councils).
Further insights
18J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
For the coming 12 months, councils State-wide should pay particular attention to the service areas where stated importance exceeds rated performance by more than 10 points. Key priorities include the following, where the margin between importance and performance is greater than 20 points: Unsealed roads (margin of 35 points) Making community decisions (margin of 25 points) Sealed local roads (margin of 25 points) Population growth (margin of 24 points) Planning and building permits (margin of 21 points) Slashing and weed control (margin of 21 points).
Consideration should also be given to Large Rural councils and residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be most driving negative opinion in 2017.
On the positive side, councils State-wide should maintain the relatively strong performance in the areas of art centres and libraries, appearance of public areas and waste management, alongside other areas where performance index scores are relatively high. It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from, what is working amongst other groups,
especially residents aged 65+ years and Metropolitan councils, and use these lessons to build performance experience and perceptions in other areas.
Focus areas for coming 12 months
19J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Snapshot of key findings
• Overall direction• Art centres & libraries• Waste management• Emergency & disaster
management• Recreational facilities• Family support
services
• Enforcement of local laws
• Environmental sustainability
• Business / community development / tourism
• Consultation & engagement
• Lobbying• Town planning policy• Population growth• Planning & building
permits• Unsealed roads
Higher results in 2017(Significantly higher result than 2016)
• Sealed local roads• Parking facilities• Slashing and weed control
Lower results in 2017(Significantly lower result than 2016)
• Aged 65+ years• Metropolitan group
Most favourably disposed towards Council
• Aged 50-64 years• Large Rural group
Least favourably disposed towards Council
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
21J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 summary of core measuresindex score results
71 71 7270 69 69
60 60 61 60 59 5957 57 57 56
54 555755 54 5455 55 54 53
55 55 56 5553 54
52 53 53 5351
53
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Customer Service
Overall Performance
Community Consultation
Making Community Decisions
Sealed Local Roads
Advocacy
Overall Council Direction
22J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Summary of core measuresdetailed analysis
Performance Measures Overall 2017
Overall2016
Highest score
Lowest score
OVERALL PERFORMANCE 59 59 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement) 55 54 Aged 18-34
years
Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural Shires
ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 54 53 Aged 18-34
years
Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural Shires
MAKING COMMUNITY DECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community) 54 54
Metropolitan, Aged 18-34
years
Large Rural Shires, Aged 50-64 years
SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 53 54 Metropolitan Large Rural
Shires
CUSTOMER SERVICE 69 69Regional Centres, Women
Men, Large Rural Shires
OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 53 51 Aged 18-34 years
Aged 50-64 years
23J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Summary of Key Community SatisfactionPercentage Results
9
7
5
6
11
30
36
29
24
29
32
36
37
32
31
34
28
18
10
15
13
14
16
8
5
6
5
7
12
6
2
10
22
10
1
2
Overall Performance
Community Consultation
Advocacy
Making CommunityDecisions
Sealed Local Roads
Customer Service
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Key Measures Summary Results
19 62 13 6Overall Council Direction
% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
24J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Importance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME
808080797878777676747573737373727371737070706967666362
808079787679777575737473737372717271737170696967656562
807979787779777575737475727372707271727070697067666562
80n/a7981n/a79787575747374737273727271737171n/a706766n/a62
80n/a7880n/a80777575737371737172737271737071n/a706666n/a62
8079797978787776
747474747372727272727171707069
6764
6261
Emergency & disaster mngtCommunity decisions
Waste managementUnsealed roads
Sealed local roadsElderly support services
Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth
Informing the communityAppearance of public areasConsultation & engagement
Slashing & weed controlFamily support services
Environmental sustainabilityTown planning policy
Traffic managementRecreational facilities
Planning & building permitsDisadvantaged support serv.
Enforcement of local lawsParking facilities
Business & community dev.Lobbying
Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural
2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences
25J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
3639
3545
3539
3436
3026292830
2724
2926262727
252123
211516
12
4642
4434
4439
4238
434741
4140
4146
4041413838
394339
3839
3435
1615171418
1719
1923
2424
2225
2426
242424
26252828
2730
343439
122
42
32
44
24
54
64
55465
65
789
1211
111
1111
12
111
22
12
111
22232
2111111
1211
12
41
31121111
Waste managementCommunity decisions
Elderly support servicesEmergency & disaster mngt
Sealed local roadsUnsealed roads
Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth
Informing the communityAppearance of public areasConsultation & engagement
Family support servicesSlashing & weed control
Traffic managementRecreational facilities
Environmental sustainabilityDisadvantaged support serv.
Town planning policyEnforcement of local laws
Planning & building permitsParking facilities
Business & community dev.Lobbying
Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural
%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Individual service areas importance detailed percentages
Individual Service Areas Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32
26J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Performance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME
727170696969686663636360616059595756545453545652515043
737272707069696766646361626061605857565555555554545445
757273717170706866646462646262605857575756555555545345
73717170706969676564n/a6262n/a6160585757n/a55n/a5655545544
73717270706869676564n/a6263n/a6058575657n/a55n/a6154525446
737171
7070
6968
676464
636161
605959
575555
5454
535353
5251
44
Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas
Waste managementEmergency & disaster mngt
Recreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural
Elderly support servicesFamily support services
Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability
Tourism developmentBus/community dev./tourismDisadvantaged support serv.Business & community dev.
Informing the communityTraffic management
Local streets & footpathsParking facilities
Consultation & engagementCommunity decisions
LobbyingSealed local roads
Slashing & weed controlTown planning policy
Population growthPlanning & building permits
Unsealed roads
2017 Priority Area Performance 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: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences
27J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Individual service areas performance detailed percentages
Individual Service Areas Performance
2525
2322
1717
12101011131314
1111101110
776765555
4644
4343
4237
39383735343331
3432
333031
3329
29242526
2423
21
2018
1822
25192630
2932
2928
1929
2832
2027
323234
2922
3031
2728
66
47
54
813
713
915
41016
164
189
1514
166
1413
1423
23
12
12
35
25
39
23
128
111
367
72
75
916
13
104
1021
133
143
122
3014
12
343
161010
1639
192223
7
Appearance of public areasWaste management
Art centres & librariesRecreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural
Emergency & disaster mngtEnforcement of local laws
Traffic managementEnvironmental sustainability
Informing the communityTourism development
Local streets & footpathsElderly support services
Bus/community dev./tourismSealed local roads
Parking facilitiesFamily support servicesSlashing & weed control
Business & community dev.Consultation & engagement
Community decisionsPopulation growth
Disadvantaged support serv.Town planning policy
LobbyingPlanning & building permits
Unsealed roads%
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: 68
28J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Importance summary by council group
Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)
Overall
1. Emergency & disaster mngt
2. Community decisions
3. Waste management
Metropolitan
1. Waste management
2. Community decisions
3. Local streets & footpaths
Interface
1. Emergency & disaster mngt
2. Population growth
3. Local streets & footpaths
Regional Centres
1. Community decisions
2. Sealed roads 3. Emergency &
disaster mngt
Large Rural
1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Emergency &
disaster mngt
Small Rural
1. Emergency & disaster mngt
2. Community decisions
3. Waste management
Bottom Three Least Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)
Overall
1. Community & cultural
2. Tourism development
3. Art centres & libraries
Metropolitan
1. Bus/community dev./tourism
2. Community & cultural
3. Slashing & weed control
Interface
1. Tourism development
2. Community & cultural
3. Art centres & libraries
Regional Centres
1. Art centres & libraries
2. Community & cultural
3. Planning permits
Large Rural
1. Art centres & libraries
2. Community & cultural
3. Traffic management
Small Rural
1. Community & cultural
2. Art centres & libraries
3. Tourism development
29J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 PERFORMANCE summary by council group
Top Three Highest Performing Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)
Bottom Three Lowest Performing Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)
Overall
1. Art centres & libraries
2. Appearance of public areas
3. Waste management
Metropolitan
1. Waste management
2. Art centres & libraries
3. Recreational facilities
Interface
1. Art centres & libraries
2. Waste management
3. Emergency & disaster mngt
Regional Centres
1. Art centres & libraries
2. Appearance of public areas
3. Emergency & disaster mngt
Large Rural
1. Appearance of public areas
2. Emergency & disaster mngt
3. Art centres & libraries
Small Rural
1. Emergency & disaster mngt
2. Art centres & libraries
3. Community & cultural
Overall
1. Unsealed roads2. Planning
permits 3. Population
growth
Metropolitan
1. Planning permits
2. Population growth
3. Parking facilities
Interface
1. Unsealed roads2. Planning
permits 3. Population
growth
Regional Centres
1. Parking facilities 2. Community
decisions3. Unsealed roads
Large Rural
1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Slashing &
weed control
Small Rural
1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Planning
permits
J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Importance and Performance2017 Index Scores Grid
Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents
Service Importance Performance
Consultation & engagement 74 55Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 54
Making community decisions 79 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 53
Informing the community 74 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57
Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 55Enforcement of local laws 71 64Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 71 61
Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 64 73Community & cultural activities 61 69
Waste management 79 71Business & community development & tourism 67 61
Town planning policy 72 53Planning permits 72 51Environmental sustainability 72 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70
Planning for pop. growth 76 52Slashing & weed control 74 53Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 44
Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 62 63
0
50
100
0 50 100
HIGH
IMPORTANCE
LOW
POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD
J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Importance and Performance2017 Index Scores Grid
(Magnified view)
Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents
HIGH
IMPORTANCE
LOW
POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD
Service Importance Performance
Consultation & engagement 74 55Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 54
Making community decisions 79 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 53
Informing the community 74 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57
Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 55Enforcement of local laws 71 64Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 71 61
Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 64 73Community & cultural activities 61 69
Waste management 79 71Business & community development & tourism 67 61
Town planning policy 72 53Planning permits 72 51Environmental sustainability 72 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70
Planning for pop. growth 76 52Slashing & weed control 74 53Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 44
Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 62 63
40
90
40 90
32J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
79
79
78
76
72
74
77
72
74
74
69
70
72
70
71
78
80
Unsealed roads
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Population growth
Planning & building permits
Slashing & weed control
Local streets & footpaths
Town planning policy
Consultation & engagement
Informing the community
Lobbying
Parking facilities
Traffic management
Business & community dev.
Disadvantaged support serv.
Elderly support services
Emergency & disaster mngt
Individual Service Areas index score Summaryimportance Vs performance
44
54
53
52
51
53
57
53
55
59
54
55
59
60
61
68
70
Importance Performance Net Differential
-35-25-25-24-21-21-20-19-19-15-15-15-13-10-10-10-10
Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is necessary:
33J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
15
9
9
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
6
Sealed Road Maintenance
Community Consultation
Communication
Development - inappropriate
Financial Management
Parking Availability
Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape
Rates - too expensive
Traffic Management
Waste Management
Footpaths/Walking Tracks
Nothing
Don’t Know
10
8
7
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
9
17
Parks and Gardens
Recreational/Sporting Facilities
Customer Service
Road/Street Maintenance
Waste Management
Community Facilities
Public areas
Generally Good - Overall/NoComplaints
Community/PublicEvents/Activities
Councillors
Nothing
Don't Know
2017 best things about Council detailed percentages2017 services to improve detailed percentages
2017 Best Aspects- Top Mentions Only -
2017 Areas for Improvement- Top Mentions Only -
%%
Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Q17. What does Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41
34J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Positives and Areas for Improvement Summary
BES
T TH
ING
SAR
EAS FOR
IMPR
OVEM
ENT
- Sealed Road Maintenance: 15%(up 2 points from 2016)
- Community Consultation: 9%(equal points on 2016)
- Communication: 9%(equal points on 2016)
- Parks and Gardens: 10%(equal points on 2016)
- Recreational/Sporting Facilities: 8%(equal points on 2016)
- Customer Service: 7%(up 1 point from 2016)
DETAILED FINDINGS
KEY CORE MEASUREOVERALL PERFORMANCE
37J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Overall performanceindex scores
64
62
60
60
60
59
58
58
57
57
55
54
Metropolitan
18-34
Interface
Women
65+
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
50-64
Large Rural
66
62
61
60
59
59
57
58
55
57
55
54
67
64
62
61
61
60
59
59
58
59
57
56
n/a
65
n/a
62
62
61
n/a
60
n/a
59
57
n/a
n/a
65
n/a
61
61
60
n/a
60
n/a
59
57
n/a
n/a
65
n/a
61
61
60
n/a
59
n/a
58
57
n/a
2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
38J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Overall performancedetailed percentages
2017 Overall Performance
99101110912
108
6109910
77
11
3636
3940
4040
4436
3431
353637
4337
3234
3736
3535
3536
3339
3941
3637
3835
3739
38
1011
109
109
69
1114
1111
107
1113
10
55
44442
4576644
665
22111122322221223
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68
KEY CORE MEASURE CUSTOMER SERVICE
40J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Contact last 12 months summary
Overall contact with Council
Most contact with Council
Least contact with Council
Customer service rating
Most satisfied with customer service
Least satisfied with customer service
• Large Rural Shires• Men
• Regional Centres• Women
• Index score of 69, equal points on 2016
• Aged 18-34 years
• Aged 35-49 years
• 59%, equal with 2016
41J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
66
63
63
60
60
59
59
58
57
56
56
52
35-49
Small Rural
50-64
Interface
Women
Overall
Metropolitan
Men
Large Rural
Regional Centres
65+
18-34
2017 contact with council
2017 Contact with Council
%
Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such asFacebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68
42J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 contact with council
2017 Contact with Council
61 60 61 6159 59
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Have had contact
%
Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such asFacebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68
43J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Method of contact with council
2017 Method of Contact
36 3739
3532 32
34
29 3032
29 28
13 14 1513
13
14
1816 16
1412
1112 11 129 8 8
1 2 2 3 3 4
1 1 1 2 1 22012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
By telephone
In person
By email
In writing
Via website
By social media
By text message
%
Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19Note: Respondents could name multiple contact methods.
44J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 MOST recent method of CONTACT WITH COUNCIL
2017 Most Recent Contact
%
3842
4440
38 39
34
29 28
33 34 32
9 9 10 10 11 1212 12 11 10 9 96 6 5 5 5 51 1 2 2 3 2
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
By telephone
In person
By email
In writing
Via website
By social media
By text message
Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 19
45J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 contact customer serviceindex scores
72
72
71
71
69
69
69
69
68
68
66
66
Regional Centres
Women
Metropolitan
65+
Interface
Overall
18-34
Small Rural
35-49
50-64
Men
Large Rural
70
72
73
71
70
69
68
69
69
69
67
67
71
72
73
72
72
70
69
70
70
70
68
67
n/a
73
n/a
74
n/a
72
71
n/a
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
74
n/a
71
70
n/a
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
74
n/a
71
70
n/a
70
70
69
n/a
2017 Customer Service Rating 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
46J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
30303132
313133
3133
2530
2633
282829
34
363637
38383736
3438
3736
3736
383736
35
181717
16171717
1816
2018
1817
171918
16
888
778
88
79
89
8788
9
666
555
575
87
85
6775
2221212222121
3111
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 contact customer servicedetailed percentages
2017 Customer Service Rating
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 68
47J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
84*
76
75
73
69
65
61
By text message
In person
Via website
By telephone
By social media
By email
In writing
2017 contact customer service INDEX scores by method of last contact
79
74
76
71
74
69
62
79
77
75
73
66
68
66
82
77
74
75
73
70
69
61
74
73
72
75
68
68
68
75
75
73
79
73
69
2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 19Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30
48J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
45
39
28
35
22
26
18
51
37
50
36
41
34
34
14
13
16
24
21
25
4
6
4
7
5
8
11
3
2
5
3
9
7
1
2
2
4
2
3
By text message*
In person
Via website
By telephone
By social media
By email
In writing
% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 CONTACT Customer servicedetailed percentages by method of last contact
2017 Customer Service Rating
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 19 *Caution: small sample size < n=30
KEY CORE MEASURE COUNCIL DIRECTION INDICATORS
50J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Council Direction Summary
• 31% prefer rate rise, equal points on 2016• 49% prefer service cuts, down 1 point on 2016
• 65% right direction (18% definitely and 47% probably)• 22% wrong direction (12% probably and 10% definitely)
• 46% a lot of room for improvement• 42% little room for improvement• 7% not much room for improvement
• Aged 50-64 years
• Aged 18-34 years
• 62% stayed about the same, equal points on 2016 • 19% improved, up 1 point on 2016• 13% deteriorated, down 2 points on 2016
Rates vs Services Trade-Off from Q10
Direction Headed from Q8
Improvement from Q7
Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6
Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6
Council Direction from Q6
51J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Overall COUNCIL direction last 12 monthsINDEX SCORES
56
55
54
54
54
53
53
52
52
52
51
50
18-34
Regional Centres
65+
Women
Metropolitan
Interface
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Large Rural
35-49
50-64
56
51
51
52
55
54
51
50
51
48
49
48
58
53
53
55
56
54
53
53
52
51
51
51
57
n/a
54
55
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
52
n/a
51
50
57
n/a
55
54
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
52
n/a
51
50
56
n/a
53
52
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
51
n/a
49
48
2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
52J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 overall council direction last 12 monthsdetailed percentages
1918202019181717
2419191919
221717
20
6262
636363
646565
5761616162
6363
6060
131513131315
1112
1415151512
1015
1712
655554
766555
76567
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
2017 Overall Direction
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68
53J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 room for improvement in servicesdetailed percentages
46
40
47
41
46
47
34
58
46
46
44
47
49
46
42
48
44
50
46
45
52
33
44
41
45
44
41
39
7
7
7
5
5
5
9
5
7
7
9
5
6
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
2
4
2
2
3
6
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say
2017 Room for Improvement
Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4
54J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 right/wrong directiondetailed percentages
18
20
20
21
19
18
19
12
17
22
18
17
17
17
16
21
47
48
49
52
50
49
50
48
45
45
45
49
51
43
46
48
12
9
10
9
10
11
10
15
13
9
10
13
12
14
12
9
10
9
10
8
10
12
8
14
12
10
12
9
10
12
11
8
13
14
11
10
10
10
14
10
14
13
14
12
10
14
16
14
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
%Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say
2017 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: 8
55J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 rates/service trade offdetailed percentages
10101011111110889
1312
813
999
2121
232525
2922
1817
2120
2021
25191919
2322
2224
2222
2228
2422
2221
2425
2222
21
2728
2623
2422
2726
2926
2728
2523
2928
29
201918171816
1921
2321
1819
2115
2021
23
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
%Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say
2017 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: 19
COMMUNICATIONS
57J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
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.
Communications Summary
• Newsletter sent via mail (34%) Overall preferred forms of communication
• Newsletter sent via mail (37%)Preferred forms of
communication among over 50s
• Newsletter sent via mail (32%)Preferred forms of
communication among under 50s
• Newsletter sent via mail (down 5 points on 2016) Greatest change since 2016
58J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 best forms of communication
2017 Best Form42
39 39 39 39
34
18 1921 22
24 25
18 18 17 1614 15
15 15 14 1513 12
2 3 3 3 4 5
2 2 2 2 2 32 2 2 3 3 4
1 1 1 1 1 1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A council newsletter sent via mail
A council newsletter sent via email
Advertising in a local newspaper
A council newsletter as an insert ina local paperA text message
The council website
Other
Can't say
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
59J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 best forms of communication: under 50S
2017 Under 50s Best Form39
37 36 3537
32
21 21
24 2527 28
18 19
16 15
12 1314 14 14 13
10 10
35 5 5 5
8
3 2 2 3 3 42 3 3 3 4 5
1 0 0 0 1 1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A council newsletter sent via mail
A council newsletter sent via email
Advertising in a local newspaper
A council newsletter as an insert ina local paperA text message
The council website
Other
Can't say
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
60J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 best forms of communication: over 50S
2017 Over 50s Best Form46
42 43 42 41
37
1517 18 18
21 21
18 18 18 17 1618
16 1715
18
15 15
1 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 2 2 22 2 2 2 3 31 1 1 1 1 2
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A council newsletter sent via mail
A council newsletter sent via email
Advertising in a local newspaper
A council newsletter as an insert ina local paperA text message
The council website
Other
Can't say
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AREAS
62J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community consultation and engagementimportance index scores
78
76
76
75
75
75
75
74
72
72
72
67
50-64
Regional Centres
Women
65+
35-49
Small Rural
Large Rural
Overall
Interface
Metropolitan
Men
18-34
78
75
77
76
76
77
76
75
75
73
73
72
78
74
76
75
76
76
75
74
72
72
72
68
77
n/a
76
74
76
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
n/a
71
68
77
n/a
75
74
74
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
67
77
n/a
75
73
75
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
68
2017 Consultation and Engagement Importance2016 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: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
63J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community consultation and engagementimportance detailed percentages
2932
2928
27272626
333130
2632
2031
3629
4141
42414343
4143
394142
4042
3542
4246
242224
252525
2525
242423
2722
3622
1720
43344454
233
53
633
3
11111111
111
111
1
12111111111111112
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 22
64J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community consultation and engagement performance index scores
58
57
56
55
55
55
54
53
53
53
52
52
18-34
Metropolitan
Women
Small Rural
65+
Overall
Regional Centres
Interface
Men
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
57
58
56
55
55
54
52
55
53
54
52
51
59
58
57
56
56
56
53
57
54
54
54
53
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
n/a
n/a
56
56
n/a
54
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
n/a
n/a
56
56
n/a
54
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
n/a
n/a
56
55
n/a
54
2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 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: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
65J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community consultation and engagementperformance detailed percentages
787888768
69
787779
292931
323233
3128
2928
3029
3034
2926
28
3232
32323433
3133
3333
3032
3232
3233
31
1515
14131313
1316
1516
1515
1412
161714
67
6555
55
78785
47
86
10109998
1312
8999
1110
89
12
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 68
66J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityimportance index scores
72
72
70
70
70
69
69
68
67
67
66
66
Women
Regional Centres
50-64
35-49
Small Rural
Overall
Large Rural
65+
Metropolitan
Interface
18-34
Men
73
69
71
71
71
69
70
68
68
70
69
66
72
68
71
70
72
69
70
68
67
68
68
66
73
n/a
72
71
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
67
67
73
n/a
71
71
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
68
66
73
n/a
72
72
n/a
70
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
68
67
2017 Lobbying Importance2016 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: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
67J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityimportance detailed percentages
232423232323
2121
262224
1926
182527
21
393839404041
3837
4040
4038
4036
4038
41
272728
272727
2928
2526
2729
2536
2423
25
7666
66
87
57
48
576
76
2221212
32
2231123
3
2322222323323222
4
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 22
68J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 lobbying on behalf of the community performance index scores
57
56
55
55
55
54
54
54
53
52
51
51
18-34
Metropolitan
Small Rural
65+
Women
Interface
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
57
56
54
54
54
55
52
53
53
51
50
50
58
58
56
57
56
56
55
55
55
53
53
53
59
n/a
n/a
57
57
n/a
n/a
56
55
54
n/a
53
59
n/a
n/a
57
56
n/a
n/a
55
55
53
n/a
52
60
n/a
n/a
57
56
n/a
n/a
55
55
53
n/a
52
2017 Lobbying Performance2016 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: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
69J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityperformance detailed percentages
556666556
46555556
2423
26272627
2423
2722
262424
3023
2123
3131
32323333
3032
3233
293131
3232
3229
1313
12111212
1111
14151213
1310
1415
12
55
4444
34
56
56
44
66
5
222220191817
2723
15202120
231920
2226
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 68
70J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance index scores
82
81
81
81
80
79
79
79
79
78
78
78
Regional Centres
Women
50-64
35-49
Large Rural
Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
65+
Small Rural
18-34
Men
82
82
80
80
80
80
79
79
79
n/a
79
77
80
81
82
80
80
80
80
78
79
82
78
77
n/a
81
81
80
n/a
79
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
78
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Community Decisions Made Importance2016 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: 15Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
71J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance detailed percentages
39
39
38
37
38
39
44
40
34
36
42
36
42
42
35
42
42
42
43
42
41
39
41
46
42
42
42
40
40
44
15
14
15
16
15
15
14
15
17
17
13
17
15
12
15
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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
72J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 decisions made in the interest of the community performance index scores
58
58
55
55
55
55
54
53
52
52
51
51
Metropolitan
18-34
Interface
65+
Women
Small Rural
Overall
Men
35-49
Regional Centres
Large Rural
50-64
59
58
56
54
55
53
54
53
52
51
50
50
59
59
58
55
56
56
55
54
53
52
52
52
n/a
60
n/a
58
57
n/a
57
56
55
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 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: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
73J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityperformance detailed percentages
6
7
7
7
7
6
7
5
7
6
6
7
6
5
8
29
29
31
33
32
29
28
26
31
29
29
35
28
25
28
34
33
33
34
32
34
34
36
33
33
34
32
33
36
34
14
14
14
12
11
13
17
16
14
14
13
11
15
16
13
7
8
6
5
4
5
8
8
7
8
6
5
8
8
6
10
10
9
10
14
13
7
9
9
10
11
10
10
10
12
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 68
74J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance index scores
81
80
80
80
79
79
79
78
77
77
77
75
Small Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
Women
Interface
65+
35-49
Overall
Large Rural
Metropolitan
Men
18-34
n/a
76
79
79
79
79
78
78
80
76
76
76
78
77
78
78
77
78
77
76
78
75
75
73
n/a
n/a
79
79
n/a
78
79
77
n/a
n/a
75
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Sealed Local Roads Importance2016 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: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
75J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance detailed percentages
35
34
32
33
32
38
41
36
41
32
38
32
38
39
33
44
46
44
45
47
42
41
40
43
45
43
42
41
45
50
18
16
20
18
18
18
16
21
14
20
16
23
18
14
15
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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
76J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your area performance index scores
66
59
56
54
54
53
53
53
52
51
50
43
Metropolitan
Interface
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
50-64
Small Rural
Large Rural
67
60
58
56
54
54
54
54
52
51
52
44
69
60
57
57
55
55
55
55
53
52
52
45
n/a
n/a
59
56
55
55
55
n/a
54
52
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 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: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
77J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaperformance detailed percentages
11
11
11
12
19
13
12
6
8
12
11
14
11
9
11
32
33
33
33
43
38
30
22
28
31
32
34
30
30
32
28
28
29
27
24
27
28
29
30
27
28
24
28
28
30
16
16
16
17
9
13
17
22
19
16
16
15
17
18
15
12
11
10
10
4
8
13
19
14
13
12
12
13
13
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 68
78J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 informing the communityimportance index scores
77
77
76
76
76
74
74
74
74
73
72
71
Women
Regional Centres
50-64
Small Rural
65+
Interface
Overall
Large Rural
35-49
Metropolitan
18-34
Men
79
76
77
78
76
77
76
77
75
74
75
72
78
76
77
76
75
74
75
76
75
73
73
72
78
n/a
76
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
73
71
78
n/a
77
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
73
71
78
n/a
78
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
75
n/a
74
72
2017 Informing Community Importance2016 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: 24Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
79J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 informing the communityimportance detailed percentages
3033
30303031
2731
353032
2535
2730
3430
4342
44434444
4343
4141
4442
4439
4143
47
2320222222
2124
2121
2420
2718
2724
1919
44
333
454
233
52
543
3
11111
111
1111111
1
1
1
111
1
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Informing Community Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24
80J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 informing the community performance index scores
61
61
60
60
60
59
59
58
58
58
57
55
Metropolitan
65+
Women
18-34
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Men
50-64
Interface
63
59
60
61
56
59
59
58
59
58
56
55
64
61
62
62
59
61
61
60
58
60
58
56
n/a
65
63
63
n/a
62
62
n/a
n/a
62
60
n/a
n/a
63
62
63
n/a
61
60
n/a
n/a
61
59
n/a
n/a
62
61
63
n/a
60
58
n/a
n/a
59
57
n/a
2017 Informing Community Performance2016 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: 36 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
81J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 informing the communityperformance detailed percentages
11121213121212
812
10121112
101110
14
3535
3840
3838
3729
333835
3536
3834
3335
3231
3130
3231
3237
3232
3032
3232
3433
30
1313
121111
1312
1715
1214
141313
1315
12
55
4434
45547544565
342332
44343343334
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Informing Community Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36
82J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance index scores
80
79
78
78
78
78
77
77
76
75
75
74
Interface
Women
Metropolitan
50-64
35-49
65+
Overall
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Large Rural
Men
18-34
79
80
78
78
78
77
77
77
75
77
74
76
78
79
77
78
78
78
77
77
76
77
75
75
n/a
79
n/a
78
78
77
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
n/a
81
n/a
79
78
78
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
75
n/a
79
n/a
79
77
78
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance2016 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: 25Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
83J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance detailed percentages
3434343335
3236
4034
3132
2939
313737
33
42434344
4446
4341
4242
4343
4139
4141
47
191819181818
1816
2022
1922
1625
191716
222322
222
32
32
42
22
111111
11
11
1
111
121111
1123111
22
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 25
84J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance index scores
62
60
57
57
57
57
57
56
56
56
54
53
Metropolitan
18-34
Men
Regional Centres
Overall
65+
Small Rural
35-49
Women
Interface
50-64
Large Rural
63
60
58
58
57
57
58
57
56
57
55
53
64
62
59
58
58
57
59
58
57
56
55
54
n/a
62
59
n/a
58
57
n/a
57
56
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
63
59
n/a
58
57
n/a
57
56
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
62
58
n/a
57
57
n/a
56
56
n/a
54
n/a
2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance2016 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: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
85J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance detailed percentages
13121313141315
1213
10131312
1513
1013
3334343433
3440
3333
2932
3532
3733
3232
2828282828
2827
2830
2828
2829
2528
3029
1514151515
1512
1515
1714
1415
1316
1614
987789
5108
119
89
89
98
233211112
44231234
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 32
86J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 traffic managementimportance index scores
76
75
74
72
72
72
71
71
69
67
67
62
Metropolitan
Women
65+
50-64
Overall
35-49
Regional Centres
18-34
Men
Large Rural
Interface
Small Rural
75
75
73
72
72
72
72
70
69
70
71
63
74
73
73
72
71
71
72
68
68
68
68
57
n/a
73
73
71
70
69
n/a
69
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
74
74
72
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76
75
74
73
73
n/a
72
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Traffic Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
87J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 traffic managementimportance detailed percentages
2727
2523
2629
332425
1916
2331
262828
27
4141
4142
4242
4333
4241
3441
4240
404145
2424
2627
2523
1929
2629
3526
2125
242522
6666554
115
813
84
865
4
1111111211311111
1
1111111111
11
2
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Traffic Management Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14
88J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 traffic management performance index scores
67
62
61
61
60
60
59
59
58
58
57
56
Small Rural
Large Rural
Regional Centres
18-34
65+
Women
Interface
Overall
Men
35-49
50-64
Metropolitan
65
62
59
61
60
60
57
59
57
57
57
56
67
59
62
62
60
60
61
60
59
58
57
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
60
61
n/a
60
60
59
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
61
60
n/a
60
59
58
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
60
59
n/a
58
58
55
56
n/a
2017 Traffic Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
89J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 traffic managementperformance detailed percentages
10101010109991110
1410101110811
38384040
3938
3539
4141
453739
4236
3737
3030
3130
3131
3033
3131
2730
3029
3131
30
1313
12121313
1711
108
61412
12141512
56
555566
54265
566
5
343333332
66
34
133
6
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Traffic Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18
90J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 parking facilitiesimportance index scores
73
73
73
72
71
70
69
67
66
66
64
64
65+
Women
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
50-64
Overall
35-49
18-34
Men
Large Rural
Interface
Small Rural
73
74
72
73
70
70
69
68
66
68
68
65
74
74
72
74
71
70
70
67
67
67
65
67
74
74
n/a
n/a
71
70
69
68
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
75
n/a
n/a
73
71
70
68
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
n/a
n/a
72
71
70
68
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Parking Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
91J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 parking facilitiesimportance detailed percentages
2524242425
2428
1629
191820
2922242628
39414140
4242
4337
3836
3438
4135
3939
45
28272728
2627
2435
2734
3532
2434
2927
21
67666
64
105
898
486
54
11111
1121
232111
22
1111
11
1
11
11
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Parking Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18
92J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 parking facilities performance index scores
63
60
57
56
56
56
55
55
54
54
53
52
Small Rural
Large Rural
Interface
18-34
35-49
Men
Overall
Women
65+
50-64
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
61
58
56
57
57
56
56
56
55
55
54
54
62
59
60
59
58
58
57
56
55
55
55
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
58
58
57
57
56
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
57
58
57
56
56
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
55
57
56
56
55
55
n/a
n/a
2017 Parking Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
93J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 parking facilitiesperformance detailed percentages
1099109989109
141091010810
33343635
3635
2936
2740
4133
3235
3331
30
323232323333
3432
3231
2732
323133
3430
161415151415
1813
1911
1015
161514
1618
8766
66
87
1155
88888
8
2332322323222222
4
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Parking Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
94J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 enforcement of local lawsimportance index scores
74
73
73
72
71
71
71
70
70
68
68
67
Women
65+
Interface
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
50-64
Overall
18-34
35-49
Large Rural
Men
Small Rural
74
71
73
71
70
71
70
70
70
69
66
69
74
72
71
72
72
71
71
70
70
70
67
68
74
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
68
n/a
66
n/a
75
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
71
72
70
n/a
68
n/a
74
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
70
71
68
n/a
66
n/a
2017 Law Enforcement Importance2016 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: 23Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
95J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 enforcement of local lawsimportance detailed percentages
27262524
2724
2931
28232223
3127272726
383841
4040
414036
37373837
393635
3943
2627
272826
2724
2428
302929
242728
2623
66
56665
66
768
47754
221111121
24212221
11111111121111112
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 23
96J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 enforcement of local laws performance index scores
67
66
65
65
64
64
64
63
63
63
61
60
18-34
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Women
35-49
Metropolitan
Overall
Large Rural
Men
65+
50-64
Interface
67
64
64
65
63
64
63
63
62
62
61
61
70
67
66
67
65
66
66
65
64
64
63
65
69
n/a
n/a
67
66
n/a
66
n/a
65
64
63
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
66
65
n/a
65
n/a
64
64
62
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
67
64
n/a
65
n/a
64
64
63
n/a
2017 Law Enforcement Performance2016 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: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
97J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 enforcement of local lawsperformance detailed percentages
12121314131313
1013
1013
111315
121011
3937
4041
4040
3834
4240
4038
3944
403535
2626
2625
2526
2629
2625
252625
2226
2827
88
67
77
89
68
78
77
798
34
33
33
35
2334
32
34
3
131412111211
1313
10131211
149
1214
16
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 32
98J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 family support servicesimportance index scores
77
76
76
74
73
73
73
72
72
71
71
69
Women
Regional Centres
18-34
Interface
Metropolitan
Overall
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
65+
Small Rural
Men
77
73
75
75
73
73
74
72
70
71
72
68
77
75
74
74
72
73
73
72
72
72
72
68
77
n/a
74
n/a
n/a
72
73
n/a
71
72
n/a
68
78
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
73
73
n/a
72
72
n/a
68
78
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
73
73
n/a
72
73
n/a
69
2017 Family Support Importance2016 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: 21Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
99J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 family support servicesimportance detailed percentages
282828
2627272931
3427
2422
3533
3027
23
414142
42444441
4040
4242
4042
4240
3844
2222
232422222321
2023
2327
1821
2225
22
55
54445
53
567
33
65
5
22
11111212
22
112
22
2322221122332112
5
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Family Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
100J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 family support services performance index scores
70
68
68
67
67
67
67
66
66
65
65
64
65+
Metropolitan
Small Rural
Women
Regional Centres
18-34
Overall
Men
35-49
Interface
Large Rural
50-64
69
69
66
67
66
66
66
66
66
65
64
62
70
68
67
68
66
67
67
67
66
66
67
65
72
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
69
68
68
67
n/a
n/a
66
71
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
68
67
67
66
n/a
n/a
64
70
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
68
67
66
65
n/a
n/a
64
2017 Family Support Performance2016 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: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
101J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 family support servicesperformance detailed percentages
111011121111109
14912
91213
117
12
3031
3433
3334
2830
3331
3130
3035
3226
27
2021
21202122
1919
222219
2120
2222
2116
44
444
535
55
44
55
542
12
111
21
22
22
11
22
11
3432
292929
2638
3624
3133
3532
2429
4141
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Family Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32
102J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 elderly support servicesimportance index scores
82
80
80
79
79
78
78
78
77
77
76
74
Women
Regional Centres
50-64
65+
Small Rural
Interface
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Metropolitan
18-34
Men
82
78
79
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
77
75
82
80
80
80
80
77
78
79
78
78
77
75
83
n/a
80
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
78
n/a
77
75
83
n/a
81
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
79
n/a
77
75
83
n/a
81
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
80
n/a
78
76
2017 Elderly Support Importance2016 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: 24Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
103J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 elderly support servicesimportance detailed percentages
353636
353637
3334
393637
2742
3134
4036
4444444645
4645
4543
4344
4643
4444
4346
1716
161615
1418
1916
1716
2113
2218
1414
22
22
22
311
223
12
22
2
11
1
1
111
111
1
1211111111111
112
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Elderly Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24
104J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 elderly support services performance index scores
72
71
68
68
68
68
67
67
67
66
66
64
65+
Small Rural
Women
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Large Rural
18-34
35-49
50-64
Interface
71
70
69
68
67
66
69
66
67
65
66
59
74
72
69
69
69
66
69
69
67
66
67
65
74
n/a
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
68
69
n/a
74
n/a
70
69
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
67
67
n/a
73
n/a
69
69
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
66
67
n/a
2017 Elderly Support Performance2016 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: 35 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
105J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 elderly support servicesperformance detailed percentages
141415161515
1110
1514
191315
101012
22
3130
3434
3334
2726
3631
353229
3327
2932
1920
1917
1920
1920
2520
1718
1920
1821
17
45
444
536
55
5454
45
4
22
221
21
22
22
22
12
22
3030
262728
2539
3618
2722
3030
3138
3022
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Elderly Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35
106J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 disadvantaged support servicesimportance index scores
75
75
72
72
72
71
71
71
70
70
70
67
Women
Regional Centres
18-34
Interface
65+
Overall
Metropolitan
50-64
Large Rural
35-49
Small Rural
Men
76
73
75
73
72
73
73
71
72
73
75
69
77
74
74
72
73
73
74
73
72
73
n/a
69
77
n/a
74
n/a
72
72
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
68
78
n/a
75
n/a
73
73
n/a
73
n/a
72
n/a
69
77
n/a
75
n/a
73
73
n/a
73
n/a
72
n/a
69
2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance2016 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: 12Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
107J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 disadvantaged support servicesimportance detailed percentages
262728
25272726
3034
2524
2032
272628
24
414242
444343
4139
4041
4040
4241
3939
45
2422
23232323
2520
2024
2328
2026
252320
55
44445
63
677
44
76
5
2111111
332
23
112
22
2322221112
421112
4
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12
108J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 disadvantaged support services performance index scores
64
63
62
62
61
61
61
61
61
60
59
56
65+
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Men
18-34
Overall
Large Rural
Women
Small Rural
35-49
50-64
Interface
64
59
62
61
60
61
61
60
57
59
59
58
65
61
63
62
62
62
62
62
62
61
60
61
67
n/a
n/a
65
65
64
n/a
63
n/a
62
61
n/a
64
n/a
n/a
64
65
62
n/a
61
n/a
61
60
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
63
66
63
n/a
63
n/a
60
59
n/a
2017 Disadvantaged Support Performance2016 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: 16 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
109J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 disadvantaged support servicesperformance detailed percentages
667878
62
1068
66665
8
2524
2828
2728
2323
3025
262525
3022
2125
2223
2322
2223
2027
2621
2823
2124
2222
19
66
65
66
68
76
65
77
56
5
22
21
22
13
32
422
22
22
3939
35353634
4337
2640
293939
3142
4441
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Disadvantaged Support Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16
110J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 recreational facilitiesimportance index scores
74
74
73
73
73
72
72
72
71
71
71
70
35-49
Women
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
50-64
Large Rural
Overall
Interface
65+
Small Rural
18-34
Men
75
75
73
73
73
72
73
73
71
72
72
71
75
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
71
73
70
71
74
74
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
70
75
74
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
70
75
74
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
70
2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
111J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 recreational facilitiesimportance detailed percentages
2425
232323
222423242423
2225
2228
2420
4645
46474749
47464646
4344
4743
4547
49
262426
262625
262726
2528
2824
3024
2525
44
34
33
333
4453523
4
111
11
1
11
1111
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Recreational Facilities Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27
112J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 recreational facilities performance index scores
73
73
70
70
69
69
69
69
68
68
66
66
65+
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Regional Centres
50-64
18-34
35-49
Large Rural
Interface
72
73
69
69
68
69
70
67
69
67
65
67
73
74
70
70
70
69
69
69
69
67
66
68
74
n/a
71
71
n/a
70
n/a
69
71
69
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
70
70
n/a
70
n/a
69
70
68
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
70
70
n/a
69
n/a
68
70
67
n/a
n/a
2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
113J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 recreational facilitiesperformance detailed percentages
22212223
2221
2516
2319
232123
212020
26
4343
4344
4444
4542
4241
4244
424243
4344
2223
2321
2222
2026
2023
212221
2422
2318
77
66775
99
96
7789
75
23
22221
32
3422
33
31
443333443
544422
57
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Recreational Facilities Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40
114J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the appearance of public areasimportance index scores
76
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
73
72
72
Women
50-64
35-49
Interface
Metropolitan
65+
Overall
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
18-34
76
75
75
75
74
75
74
74
74
74
72
72
75
75
75
73
73
74
73
73
74
73
71
70
75
75
75
n/a
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
70
76
76
75
n/a
n/a
75
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
71
75
74
74
n/a
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
71
2017 Public Areas Importance2016 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: 28Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
115J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the appearance of public areasimportance detailed percentages
2626
242526
232727262526
2329
252828
24
4748
4748
4849
4848
454647
4747
424747
52
2423252523
252322
2627
2326
2129
232221
2222222322
33
2322
2
1
1
111
1
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 28
116J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the appearance of public areas performance index scores
74
73
72
72
72
72
72
71
71
69
69
66
Small Rural
Regional Centres
65+
Women
35-49
Metropolitan
18-34
Overall
Men
50-64
Large Rural
Interface
73
73
72
71
71
72
72
71
71
69
69
66
74
72
72
72
72
73
73
72
71
70
69
67
n/a
n/a
73
72
72
n/a
73
72
72
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
71
70
n/a
72
71
71
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
72
70
n/a
73
71
71
70
n/a
n/a
2017 Public Areas Performance2016 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: 39 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
117J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 the appearance of public areasperformance detailed percentages
25242425
242324
1728
2030
2327
2525
2226
46464746
464848
4346
4544
4744
4647
4644
2021
2020
222120
3018
2317
21202019
2221
6655666
76
756666
75
22222223
223222232
11111111
11111112
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 39
118J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 art centres and librariesimportance index scores
69
67
66
66
64
64
63
62
62
61
61
60
Women
Metropolitan
65+
35-49
Overall
50-64
Large Rural
Regional Centres
Interface
18-34
Small Rural
Men
70
68
67
66
66
65
63
64
66
64
65
60
70
69
67
67
65
65
63
66
64
63
62
61
70
n/a
68
66
66
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
n/a
62
70
n/a
69
67
66
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
n/a
62
71
n/a
68
67
66
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
n/a
62
2017 Art Centres & Libraries Importance2016 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: 20Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
119J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 art centres and librariesimportance detailed percentages
1518
1617161718
141415
1212
1912
181616
3940
40404242
413636
3936
3443
3539
3844
34303333
333332
3636
3238
3732
4032
3429
99
88
777
10111011
135
11897
23211
21
3233312
222
1111
11111111
111
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 20
120J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 art centres and libraries performance index scores
76
75
75
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
70
65+
Metropolitan
Women
Regional Centres
35-49
Overall
Interface
18-34
Small Rural
50-64
Men
Large Rural
75
74
74
75
72
72
68
71
71
71
70
70
76
75
75
75
73
73
72
73
69
71
72
73
78
n/a
77
n/a
76
75
n/a
74
n/a
73
74
n/a
76
n/a
74
n/a
73
73
n/a
73
n/a
72
72
n/a
76
n/a
74
n/a
72
73
n/a
73
n/a
71
71
n/a
2017 Art Centres & Libraries Performance2016 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: 28 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
121J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 art centres and librariesperformance detailed percentages
232324
27252425
2127
1822
2026
2024
2027
4342
4444
4444
4442
4243
4343
4445
4343
43
1818
1817
181917
1919
2018
1917
1917
2115
45
43
45
35
36
55
455
43
12
1122
11
12
11
111
11
10109887
1011
81210
129
109
1211
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 28
122J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community and cultural activitiesimportance index scores
65
63
62
62
61
61
61
61
61
60
57
57
Women
35-49
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Metropolitan
18-34
Overall
65+
Large Rural
50-64
Men
Interface
66
62
62
64
62
64
62
61
61
61
58
63
66
62
63
65
62
63
62
61
61
61
58
59
65
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
62
61
n/a
61
58
n/a
65
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
62
63
n/a
62
59
n/a
65
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
62
62
n/a
61
58
n/a
2017 Community Activities Importance2016 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: 21Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
123J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community and cultural activitiesimportance detailed percentages
12121111111113
813
1112
10141313
1110
3537
3737373735
3036
3635
3039
3237
3437
39384041
4139
3945
3838
4142
3742
374038
1110109
91011
1210
119
147
1110
1110
222122232323112
33
11
11111111111
12
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 21
124J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community and cultural activities performance index scores
71
70
70
70
69
69
69
69
68
67
67
64
Women
35-49
65+
Metropolitan
Small Rural
Overall
Large Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
Men
18-34
Interface
70
70
69
71
65
69
67
69
67
67
68
63
71
70
71
71
68
69
69
69
68
68
69
65
71
71
72
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
69
68
69
n/a
70
69
71
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
68
68
68
n/a
70
68
71
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
67
67
68
n/a
2017 Community Activities Performance2016 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: 29 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
125J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 community and cultural activitiesperformance detailed percentages
1717181817
1518
11181718
1419
1519
1618
4241
4344
4444
4338
4342
4241
4342
4441
41
2525
252425
2623
2926
2526
2823
2724
2723
55
555
55
76
64
6575
54
12
111
11
21
12
1111
11
1097889
1113
697
10988
1012
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 29
126J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 waste managementimportance index scores
81
81
80
80
79
79
79
79
78
78
77
76
Metropolitan
Women
50-64
35-49
Interface
Regional Centres
65+
Overall
Large Rural
18-34
Men
Small Rural
82
82
81
80
81
79
80
80
79
79
78
79
81
80
81
80
79
80
79
79
78
76
77
77
n/a
80
80
79
n/a
n/a
80
79
n/a
77
77
n/a
n/a
81
81
80
n/a
n/a
80
79
n/a
76
77
n/a
n/a
80
79
79
n/a
n/a
79
78
n/a
76
77
n/a
2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
127J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 waste managementimportance detailed percentages
3638
353536
3240
3739
3430
3240
353938
33
4645
4647
4749
464540
4648
4645
424346
52
1614
1616
1516
1316
1718
1918
1420
171413
12
111
11221
22121
11
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Waste Management Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
128J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 waste management performance index scores
75
74
71
71
71
71
71
70
70
69
69
68
Metropolitan
65+
Men
Overall
Women
18-34
Interface
Small Rural
35-49
50-64
Regional Centres
Large Rural
76
74
70
70
70
70
71
69
68
67
69
66
77
75
72
72
72
73
73
71
69
70
71
68
n/a
75
73
73
72
74
n/a
n/a
71
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
72
71
70
73
n/a
n/a
69
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
72
72
72
73
n/a
n/a
69
70
n/a
n/a
2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
129J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 waste managementperformance detailed percentages
25242526
2424
292525
212526
25252423
30
4445
4747
4748
4846
4144
4244
4545
4444
44
1818
1716
1817
1618
1921
1818
1818
1920
15
67
6566
58
977
67778
5
343332
13
444
333432
322222112
44333223
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Waste Management Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38
130J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community development and tourism importance index scores
74
72
69
69
68
67
67
67
66
65
65
60
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Women
35-49
65+
Overall
50-64
Large Rural
18-34
Men
Interface
Metropolitan
73
71
70
68
67
67
67
69
67
64
65
60
73
70
69
68
67
67
69
70
65
65
64
59
n/a
n/a
70
68
67
67
68
n/a
66
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
68
67
67
68
n/a
65
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
66
66
66
67
n/a
64
63
n/a
n/a
2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance2016 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: 18Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
131J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community development and tourism importance detailed percentages
2121212020
1812
1729
1826
1923
1924
2120
383838
3839
3933
3841
4141
3640
3737
3940
3030
313131
3136
3224
3125
3128
3329
2828
88
78
89
158
485
107
108
98
2221222312
221112
2
1211111111211111
3
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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
132J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community development and tourism performance index scores
66
64
64
63
63
61
61
60
60
60
60
58
Interface
65+
Small Rural
Women
18-34
Overall
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
35-49
Men
Large Rural
50-64
n/a
62
61
62
63
60
62
62
59
59
59
59
63
63
63
63
64
61
63
62
60
59
59
59
n/a
63
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
59
n/a
63
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
n/a
60
61
n/a
59
n/a
63
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
59
2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance2016 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: 24 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
133J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community development and tourism performance detailed percentages
111011111010
615
1311
15101212
108
12
3432
3435
3535
3136
3533
3633
3437
3330
34
2931
3130
3031
3126
2831
2730
2928
2932
28
1010
109
99
9812
129
119
1011
127
33
33
33
22
44
442
24
43
141412121312
2213
89
101314
1013
1516
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 24
134J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 council’s general town planning policyimportance index scores
76
76
76
74
74
73
73
72
71
71
70
64
50-64
65+
Small Rural
35-49
Women
Large Rural
Metropolitan
Overall
Regional Centres
Men
Interface
18-34
76
74
77
74
75
73
72
73
72
71
72
68
76
74
72
74
74
73
72
72
73
70
72
66
76
74
n/a
73
74
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
70
n/a
66
77
75
n/a
73
74
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
71
n/a
66
76
74
n/a
73
74
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
70
n/a
66
2017 Town Planning Importance2016 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: 16Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
135J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 council’s general town planning policyimportance detailed percentages
2627
2525252526
2322
2730
2328
1528
3230
4140
4141424241
3742
4144
4041
3543
4243
242425
25252423
2627
2320
2622
3621
1818
444
4445
54
53
54
843
2
111
1111
21
1
11111
1
4545444
6532
45433
6
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 16
136J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 council’s general town planning policy performance index scores
57
56
54
54
53
53
53
53
51
51
51
49
18-34
Regional Centres
Large Rural
65+
Men
Overall
Metropolitan
Women
35-49
Small Rural
Interface
50-64
57
54
51
52
51
52
54
53
50
49
52
48
59
55
53
54
54
54
55
55
53
53
55
51
60
n/a
n/a
55
54
55
n/a
56
53
n/a
n/a
51
60
n/a
n/a
55
54
55
n/a
55
53
n/a
n/a
50
59
n/a
n/a
54
53
54
n/a
54
52
n/a
n/a
50
2017 Town Planning Performance2016 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: 24 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
137J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 council’s general town planning policyperformance detailed percentages
55565554654555546
2625
28282929
2522
2929
2528
2431
2522
25
3030
31313232
2831
3331
2929
3029
2931
30
1414
12121214
1415
1112
1514
139
1518
13
77
665
66
75
68
76
588
6
191917171715
2021
161819
1622201918
20
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 24
138J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning and building permitsimportance index scores
76
75
74
74
72
72
72
70
69
69
68
66
Metropolitan
65+
50-64
Women
35-49
Overall
Large Rural
Men
Interface
Regional Centres
Small Rural
18-34
74
74
74
74
71
71
70
69
69
69
71
67
74
74
73
73
72
71
71
69
69
70
70
66
n/a
74
73
74
72
71
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
74
74
73
72
71
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
n/a
74
74
73
72
71
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
2017 Planning & Building Permits Importance2016 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: 19Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
139J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning and building permitsimportance detailed percentages
272626252525
3424
2225
2224
3019
2932
29
383939414041
3838
3640
3738
3834
3837
42
2525
27252725
2127
3026
2826
2534
2523
19
56
555
54
675
67
48
54
3
12
111
11211
321111
2
3323232233
534322
6
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 19
140J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning and building permits performance index scores
60
55
51
51
51
51
50
49
49
48
47
46
Regional Centres
18-34
Small Rural
Women
65+
Overall
Men
35-49
Metropolitan
Large Rural
50-64
Interface
55
55
50
52
50
50
49
48
50
50
48
46
57
58
53
54
53
54
53
53
53
54
51
49
n/a
58
n/a
54
53
53
53
51
n/a
n/a
50
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
55
54
55
54
54
n/a
n/a
50
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
54
53
54
53
51
n/a
n/a
49
n/a
2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance2016 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: 25 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
141J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning and building permitsperformance detailed percentages
5565655
28
46656556
2322
2525
2626
2220
3121
2123
2228
212121
2725
2826
2727
2631
2726
2828
2529
272724
1413
1212
1212
1516
815
1314
1310
1516
14
98
67
67
1010
511
810
88
1012
8
2327
23252323222122
2424
1926
2123
2027
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 25
142J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 environmental sustainabilityimportance index scores
76
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
70
70
68
Women
18-34
Metropolitan
35-49
Overall
Interface
Large Rural
50-64
Regional Centres
Small Rural
65+
Men
77
77
74
72
73
77
73
73
71
74
71
69
77
75
74
73
73
71
72
73
73
77
70
69
77
75
n/a
72
73
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
70
68
76
74
n/a
71
72
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
70
68
75
73
n/a
71
71
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
69
67
2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
143J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 environmental sustainabilityimportance detailed percentages
29302929
2726
3031
2731
2624
3433
2929
24
404041
4042
414140
4036
3638
4238
4039
41
242123
2424
2422
202524
2927
2024
2422
24
56
5556
56
555
833
566
2212221
32223111
32
1111111111111
12
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20
144J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 environmental sustainability performance index scores
65
64
64
64
64
64
64
63
63
62
62
62
Regional Centres
18-34
Metropolitan
65+
35-49
Men
Overall
Women
Small Rural
Interface
Large Rural
50-64
63
64
64
63
63
62
63
63
61
60
62
61
63
65
65
65
63
64
64
64
63
63
64
62
n/a
65
n/a
65
64
64
64
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
66
n/a
65
64
64
64
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
67
n/a
65
63
64
64
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
145J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 environmental sustainabilityperformance detailed percentages
10111011111110912
81211101110911
373639
394039
3738
3937
3538
3740
3834
36
2930
30292929
2830
2930
3029
2927
2930
30
78
7677
68
78
877
77
86
232222
23
23
322
22
32
141313121212
161211
1412
141412
151515
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29
146J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 emergency and disaster managementimportance index scores
84
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
80
78
77
76
Women
Interface
Large Rural
18-34
Small Rural
50-64
Regional Centres
Overall
65+
35-49
Metropolitan
Men
84
83
81
81
82
80
80
80
80
80
76
76
84
81
81
80
80
80
81
80
79
79
77
75
85
n/a
n/a
82
n/a
80
n/a
80
80
79
n/a
76
85
n/a
n/a
82
n/a
80
n/a
80
80
79
n/a
76
84
n/a
n/a
81
n/a
80
n/a
80
79
79
n/a
76
2017 Disaster Management Importance2016 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: 19Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
147J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 emergency and disaster managementimportance detailed percentages
4545444546
4340
524547
4539
5148
4447
41
3436
353434
3835
3233
3536
3534
3232
3340
1414
15141414
1711
151314
1811
1516
1413
434444
64432
623
54
3
111111
121112111
11
1111112111111
13
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 19
148J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 emergency and disaster management performance index scores
72
72
71
71
70
70
70
69
69
69
68
68
Small Rural
65+
18-34
Women
Regional Centres
Overall
Large Rural
Men
Interface
35-49
Metropolitan
50-64
71
71
71
71
68
69
70
68
69
68
68
67
70
71
73
71
68
70
71
69
70
68
69
67
n/a
72
75
73
n/a
71
n/a
70
n/a
70
n/a
68
n/a
71
72
70
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
69
n/a
67
n/a
71
73
70
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
68
n/a
67
2017 Disaster Management Performance2016 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: 24 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
149J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 emergency and disaster managementperformance detailed percentages
171717
201919
1115
1918
2316
1918
1615
20
373639
383738
3141
3939
3837
3742
3734
35
1919
1918
2020
1918
2020
182018
1821
2216
44
5455
35
454
44
34
44
22
2222
12
222
22
22
22
2121
18181716
3418161616
2021
1720
2323
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 24
150J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning for population growth in the areaimportance index scores
80
79
78
78
78
77
76
75
75
75
73
Interface
50-64
35-49
Women
Large Rural
65+
Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Men
18-34
79
77
77
77
74
75
76
75
76
74
74
76
79
78
77
74
75
75
74
76
73
70
n/a
78
78
77
n/a
75
75
n/a
n/a
73
70
n/a
78
77
77
n/a
74
75
n/a
n/a
73
71
n/a
78
77
77
n/a
75
75
n/a
n/a
73
73
2017 Population Growth Importance2016 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: 15Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
151J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning for population growth in the areaimportance detailed percentages
36
35
34
33
34
34
36
44
32
38
34
39
32
40
39
35
38
37
38
38
38
39
37
36
40
37
38
38
34
38
40
40
19
20
21
21
20
19
19
13
21
19
20
18
26
17
15
16
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
6
3
6
3
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 15
152J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning for population growth in the area performance index scores
62
57
53
52
52
52
51
50
50
49
48
Regional Centres
18-34
Men
Overall
65+
Women
Metropolitan
Interface
35-49
50-64
Large Rural
59
55
52
51
52
51
51
55
49
48
47
61
60
54
54
54
55
54
57
51
50
50
n/a
59
54
54
55
55
n/a
n/a
52
51
n/a
n/a
59
54
54
55
54
n/a
n/a
51
50
n/a
n/a
58
52
52
52
52
n/a
n/a
48
49
n/a
2017 Population Growth Performance2016 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: 20 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
153J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 planning for population growth in the areaperformance detailed percentages
7
6
7
7
7
6
6
7
14
5
8
7
10
6
6
7
24
23
28
28
26
25
22
22
33
21
24
24
30
23
20
22
29
30
30
30
31
31
30
30
26
30
29
29
27
30
31
29
16
16
14
15
14
16
17
18
10
19
17
15
14
19
17
15
7
8
6
6
6
7
7
10
4
9
7
8
6
9
9
7
16
16
15
15
17
14
18
12
12
17
15
17
14
13
17
21
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 20
154J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 roadside slashing and weed controlimportance index scores
78
76
76
76
76
75
74
73
71
66
65
50-64
Small Rural
65+
Interface
Women
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Men
18-34
Metropolitan
76
n/a
73
76
75
75
73
74
71
69
64
76
77
74
75
75
74
73
75
70
65
62
78
n/a
76
n/a
78
n/a
75
76
71
68
n/a
78
n/a
77
n/a
77
n/a
74
76
72
66
n/a
74
n/a
73
n/a
74
n/a
71
71
68
65
n/a
2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance2016 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: 6Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
155J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 roadside slashing and weed controlimportance detailed percentages
30
28
28
32
30
24
15
34
33
32
27
33
20
31
38
31
40
42
40
40
42
42
38
40
39
44
38
41
37
37
40
45
25
23
26
23
24
28
36
22
23
21
28
21
33
28
18
21
4
5
5
4
4
5
8
3
4
2
5
4
9
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 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: 6
156J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 roadside slashing and weed control performance index scores
68
58
54
54
54
53
52
51
51
50
50
Metropolitan
18-34
35-49
Interface
Women
Overall
Men
65+
Small Rural
Large Rural
50-64
68
61
57
56
57
56
55
54
51
54
52
69
62
55
52
55
55
54
52
52
53
51
n/a
63
53
n/a
55
55
55
53
n/a
n/a
51
n/a
63
56
n/a
56
56
57
55
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
67
59
n/a
61
61
60
59
n/a
n/a
58
2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance2016 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: 8 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
157J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 roadside slashing and weed controlperformance detailed percentages
10
11
10
11
11
14
17
10
8
11
10
10
15
10
8
8
31
34
32
32
35
38
47
31
30
27
31
32
38
32
28
29
27
28
30
28
28
28
22
29
28
27
26
28
22
30
28
28
18
15
16
17
16
12
7
19
19
19
20
16
13
18
21
19
11
9
9
10
8
5
2
9
13
14
11
11
11
9
13
12
3
3
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 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: 8
158J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance index scores
81
81
80
79
79
79
78
77
77
76
76
Small Rural
50-64
Women
Interface
65+
Overall
35-49
Men
Large Rural
18-34
Regional Centres
81
80
80
79
79
79
78
77
78
78
70
82
80
80
78
78
78
79
76
76
76
72
n/a
80
81
n/a
77
78
80
76
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
82
83
n/a
80
81
82
79
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
81
82
n/a
79
80
80
78
n/a
79
n/a
2017 Unsealed Roads Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
159J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance detailed percentages
39
40
39
39
44
41
41
33
35
43
35
43
37
40
44
35
39
37
39
38
39
39
36
41
39
41
41
38
36
37
38
45
17
17
18
17
14
15
18
18
21
13
19
15
23
18
14
14
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Unsealed Roads Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
160J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance index scores
52
45
45
45
44
44
44
43
43
42
41
Regional Centres
Interface
65+
18-34
Men
35-49
Overall
Women
Small Rural
Large Rural
50-64
n/a
44
45
46
43
42
43
43
44
43
40
51
47
46
48
45
44
45
45
45
44
43
n/a
n/a
48
46
46
45
45
45
n/a
n/a
42
n/a
n/a
48
47
45
42
44
43
n/a
n/a
40
n/a
n/a
50
48
46
44
46
46
n/a
n/a
43
2017 Unsealed Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
161J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaperformance detailed percentages
5
5
5
5
6
7
5
9
4
6
6
5
6
6
4
5
21
20
22
22
20
22
21
25
20
20
22
20
24
20
20
19
28
29
30
30
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
26
28
29
30
23
22
22
22
24
21
22
18
25
23
23
23
25
24
24
20
16
16
15
14
16
15
14
8
17
18
17
15
15
17
18
14
7
7
7
7
4
7
9
13
6
5
6
8
4
5
6
11
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Unsealed Roads Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18
162J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community developmentimportance index scores
73
72
71
71
70
70
69
69
68
67
Regional Centres
18-34
Women
35-49
Large Rural
Overall
50-64
Men
65+
Interface
n/a
72
72
73
71
70
69
69
67
69
n/a
69
71
70
72
69
69
67
68
67
n/a
70
71
71
n/a
69
69
67
68
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 Business/Community Development Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
163J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community developmentimportance detailed percentages
21
22
20
20
18
25
21
20
23
22
23
22
19
43
43
42
45
40
46
42
42
43
48
42
40
42
28
27
31
27
32
23
29
29
28
25
29
30
28
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
6
4
4
5
6
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say
2017 Business/Community Development Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7
164J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community development performance index scores
65
62
61
60
60
60
59
59
59
59
58
56
Small Rural
18-34
65+
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
35-49
Men
Large Rural
Interface
Regional Centres
50-64
62
63
59
62
60
60
59
59
58
58
61
56
61
64
61
63
61
60
59
59
60
63
54
58
n/a
65
62
n/a
63
62
60
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
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 Business/Community Development Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
165J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 business and community developmentperformance detailed percentages
7
7
8
8
6
5
8
7
12
7
7
8
7
6
7
33
33
34
35
31
31
33
33
43
34
32
39
33
28
30
32
29
31
30
34
35
35
31
23
32
33
32
33
34
30
9
10
9
8
7
8
9
10
7
9
8
8
9
11
7
3
3
3
2
1
2
5
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
16
17
15
17
22
17
10
16
11
15
18
10
15
17
23
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Business/Community Development Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12
166J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 tourism developmentimportance index scores
70
64
63
63
63
62
62
61
59
53
Regional Centres
65+
50-64
Large Rural
Women
Overall
35-49
Men
18-34
Interface
n/a
64
64
67
65
63
64
62
62
57
64
67
67
67
66
65
65
63
59
50
n/a
66
65
n/a
67
65
64
63
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Tourism Development Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
167J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 tourism developmentimportance detailed percentages
16
18
19
18
9
23
16
16
16
14
16
17
16
6
6
34
34
36
37
27
40
35
33
35
31
32
36
38
43
44
34
35
32
31
34
28
37
34
34
35
35
33
32
34
33
12
10
10
10
23
6
9
13
12
17
13
10
9
14
14
3
3
3
2
6
1
2
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
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
2017 Tourism Development Importance
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
168J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 tourism development performance index scores
67
65
65
64
64
63
63
63
61
61
56
54
Small Rural
Large Rural
Regional Centres
Women
18-34
65+
Overall
35-49
Men
50-64
Interface
Metropolitan
64
64
71
64
64
62
63
63
62
60
56
54
63
66
67
64
64
65
63
61
62
62
53
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
64
66
64
62
62
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2017 Tourism Development Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
169J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 tourism developmentperformance detailed percentages
13131213
45
1513
24121414131214
1111
3434
3536
2425
3740
3334
3435
3533
321416
292728
2831
382927
202928
3226
3027
2828
9999
1312
78
10108
81010
82019
3332
32
42
54
33
33
31212
12131313
2518
911
711
148
1212
161414
2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+Personal user*
Household user*%
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
2017 Tourism Development Performance
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS
171J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
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.
2017 GENDER AND AGE profile
Gender Age
49%51%MenWomen
8%
18%
24%23%
27%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68
172J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11
2017 HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE
2017 Household Structure
%
13
7
3
3
23
26
22
4
Single person living alone
Single living with friends or housemates
Single living with children 16 or under
Single with children but none 16 or under livingat home
Married or living with partner, no children
Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home
Married or living with partner with children butnone 16 or under at home
Do not wish to answer
173J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 years lived in area
2017 Years Lived in Area
14
15
16
13
15
13
10
14
14
25
16
6
7
17
16
15
28
14
17
13
16
17
21
25
10
9
24
25
22
33
27
24
20
24
23
23
32
23
16
18
17
20
12
19
20
16
17
18
25
11
22
15
28
27
27
15
25
27
40
28
28
7
16
39
54
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
%0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say
S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15
174J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 Home ownership
2017 Own or Rent
83
79
82
83
83
81
80
80
91
85
81
67
82
91
93
15
20
17
16
16
18
18
17
8
13
17
30
16
6
6
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+% Own Rent
Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental property?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4
175J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
2017 languages spoken at home2017 Countries of Birth
2017 Languages Spoken- Top Mentions Only -
%
2017 Countries of Birth- Top Mentions Only -
%
54
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
English only
ITALIAN
VIETNAMESE
HINDI
CHINESE
GREEK
ARABIC
SPANISH
CROATIAN
FRENCH
47
7
6
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
Australia
INDIA
CHINA
OTHER ASIAN
UNITED KINGDOM
GERMANY
GREECE
OTHER EUROPEAN
OTHER AMERICAS
NEW ZEALAND
Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3 Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 2
176J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
828181
7065
6158
5151
4224
2322
211818
171515
1413
1212
55
807979
6563
5851
4749
3921202019
171615
131413
1110
845
Appearance of public areasParking facilities
Waste managementRecreational facilities
Local streets & footpathsSealed local roads
Art centres & librariesInforming the community
Unsealed roadsCommunity & cultural
Enforcement of local lawsConsultation & engagement
Environmental sustainabilityBus/community dev./tourism
Town planning policyCommunity decisions
Planning & building permitsLobbying
Business & community dev.Population growth
Emergency & disaster mngtFamily support servicesElderly support services
Disadvantaged support serv.Tourism development
Total household usePersonal use
%
2017 personal and household use and experience of council services Percentage results
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: 15
APPENDIX FURTHER PROJECT INFORMATION
178J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
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 Overall 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 2012-2017 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.
Appendix: Background and objectives
179J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Demographic Actual survey
sample size
Weighted base
Maximum margin of error at 95%
confidence interval
State-wide 27907 27200 +/-0.6Men 12608 13388 +/-0.9Women 15299 13812 +/-0.8Metropolitan 7300 7200 +/-1.1Interface 2500 2400 +/-2.0Regional Centres 3600 3600 +/-1.6Large Rural 8102 7600 +/-1.1Small Rural 6405 6400 +/-1.218-34 years 3288 6943 +/-1.735-49 years 5532 6652 +/-1.350-64 years 8713 6188 +/-1.065+ years 10374 7418 +/-1.0
The sample size for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=27,907. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all reported charts and tables.
The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately n=27,907 interviews is +/-0.6% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 49.4% - 50.6%.
Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 3,081,000 people aged 18 years or over, according to ABS estimates.
Appendix: Margins of error
180J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
In 2017, 68 of the 79 Victorian councils chose to participate in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings, as classified below. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings.
Please note that councils participating in 2012-2016 vary slightly to those participating in 2017, and that council grouping classifications significantly changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results can not be made to any period prior to 2015.
Appendix: Analysis and reportinG
Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small RuralBanyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast AlpineBayside Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw Ararat
Boroondara Melton Greater Shepparton Campaspe BenallaBrimbank Mornington Peninsula Horsham Colac Otway BulokeFrankston Whittlesea Latrobe Corangamite Central GoldfieldsGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura East Gippsland Gannawarra
Greater Dandenong Wangaratta Glenelg HepburnKingston Warrnambool Golden Plains Hindmarsh
Knox Wodonga Macedon Ranges IndigoManningham Mitchell LoddonMaroondah Moira MansfieldMelbourne Moorabool Murrindindi
Monash Mount Alexander PyreneesMoonee Valley Moyne Queenscliffe
Moreland South Gippsland West WimmeraPort Phillip Southern Grampians Yarriambiack
Stonnington Surf CoastWhitehorse Swan Hill
WellingtonNon-participating councils: Ballarat, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Nillumbik, Northern Grampians, Strathbogie, Towong, Wyndham, and Yarra.
181J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Index ScoresMany questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 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.
Appendix: Analysis and reporting
SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE
Very good 9% 100 9Good 40% 75 30Average 37% 50 19Poor 9% 25 2Very poor 4% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60
182J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
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.
Appendix: Analysis and reporting
SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE
Improved 36% 100 36Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56
183J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
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; orb) the level of importance placed on a particular service area.
For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be categorised as follows:
Appendix: index score implications
INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication
75 – 100 Council 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 – 50 Council is performing poorlyin this service area
This service area is seen to be somewhat important
0 – 40 Council is performing very poorlyin this service area
This service area is seen to be not that important
184J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($3*2 / $5) + ($4*2 / $6))
Where:$1 = Index Score 1$2 = Index Score 2$3 = unweighted sample count 1$4 = unweighted sample count 1$5 = standard deviation 1$6 = standard deviation 2
All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.
The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are significantly different.
Appendix: index score significant difference calculation
185J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2017 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 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.
Appendix: Analysis and reporting
186J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with this State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed, which is available at:
https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey
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.
Appendix: Analysis and reporting
187J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report
Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2017 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.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.
Appendix: Glossary of terms
Contact Us:03 8685 8555
John ScalesManaging Director
Mark ZukerManaging Director
There ARE OVER
6 million peoplein victoria...
find out what they'rethinking.