2016 cowra shire council community survey -...

2016 Cowra Shire Council

Community Survey - Services

Final Management Report

Prepared for

Prepared by IRIS Research Ltd

May 2016

I n s i g h t f o r

B u s i n e s s & G o v e r n m e n t

IRIS Research ABN 16 002 278 793 Level 1, iC Central, Innovation Campus, Squires Way, North Wollongong

Postal address: Northfields Ave, Wollongong NSW 2522. Telephone: (02) 4285 4446 Fax: (02) 4285 4448

Net: http://www.iris.org.au Email: [email protected]

http://www.iris.org.au/

mailto:[email protected]

2016 Cowra Shire Council Community Survey – Services - Management Report page 2

Table of contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................ 4

Study Objectives ........................................................................................................ 4

Attitude Measurement ................................................................................................ 5

Survey Response ....................................................................................................... 7

Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 8

Overall Performance ........................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Overall Performance ........................................................................................ 10

Council Services and Facilities ....................................................................................... 13

3.1 Satisfaction – Infrastructure .............................................................................. 14

3.2 Satisfaction – Community and Cultural Services & Facilities ........................... 16

3.3 Usage – Community and Cultural Services & Facilities .................................... 18

Prioritising Services and Facilities .................................................................................. 19

4.1 Quadrant Analysis ........................................................................................... 19

Staff and Councillor Performance ................................................................................... 23

5.1 Resident Contact with Council ......................................................................... 23

5.2 Contact Reason ............................................................................................... 24

5.3 Media Used to Contact Council ........................................................................ 25

5.4 Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance ..................................................... 26

5.5 Satisfaction with Councillor Performance ......................................................... 28

Council Communications and Media Usage ................................................................... 29

6.1 Resident Preferred Source of Council Information ........................................... 29

6.2 Resident Satisfaction with Council Communication ......................................... 30

Community Safety and Connectedness.......................................................................... 31

7.1 Perceptions of Safety and Community Connectedness.......................... 31

7.2 Volunteering ........................................................................................... 33


Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................ 34

8.1 Importance of Infrastructure ................................................................... 34

8.2 Importance of Infrastructure Renewal and Maintenance ........................ 36

8.3 Resident Willingness for Rate Increase - Infrastructure.......................... 38

8.4 Resident Perceptions of Council’s Planning ........................................... 39

Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................... 40

9.1 ANOVA Tables ................................................................................................... 40

9.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 43

Sample Design ............................................................................................ 43

Data Collection ............................................................................................ 44

Response Performance ............................................................................... 44

Survey Accuracy .......................................................................................... 45

Disclaimer ………………………………………………………………………………….46


Introduction

Background

This study was commissioned by Cowra Shire Council with the intention of monitoring

community satisfaction with the delivery of services provided by Cowra Shire Council.

The goal of the study was to measure Cowra Shire Council’s performance and provide

up-to-date insights into perceptions of service delivery, as well as uncovering community

issues of importance. The survey is designed to provide a high-level community view of

the performance of council services to assist the council in identifying service priorities

for review and improvement.

This survey was conducted on the IRIS Computer- Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI)

system during May 2016. To qualify for an interview, respondents had to have been a

resident in the Cowra Shire Council area for at least the last 6 months and aged 18 or

older.

Study Objectives

The objectives for the community survey process were to:

Measure the satisfaction with services and facilities provided by Cowra Shire

Council;

Assist Cowra Shire Council by identifying the priority issues for the community;

Identify key drivers of resident dissatisfaction;

Measure resident satisfaction with staff and councilor performance

Identify preferred communications methods

Assess perceptions of community safety and connectedness

Evaluate Council’s strategic planning and willingness to fund an infrastructure

rates increase


Attitude Measurement

In the first section of the questionnaire, a series of 18 Council services and facilities were

read out to respondents. For each, respondents were asked to give a satisfaction rating.

Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis in this report. The

satisfaction, importance and agreement rating scales used in the questionnaire are

exhibited below:

Satisfaction scale Importance scale Agreement scale 1 = Very dissatisfied 1 = Not at all important 1 = Strongly disagree 2 … 2 … 2 … 3 … 3 … 3 … 4 … 4 … 4 … 5 = Very satisfied 5 = Very important. 5 = Strongly agree 6 = Can’t say 6 = Can’t say 6 = Can’t say

For all rating scales, those respondents who could not provide a rating, either because

the question did not apply to them or they had no opinion, were entered as a ‘Can’t Say’

or a rating of 6. Rating scale results have generally been presented in two basic forms.

Firstly, the results have been presented in terms of the proportion (%) of respondents

giving a particular rating for a specific service or facility. These results are presented in

full and in collapsed category tables, where proportions have been assigned to one of

the following categories:

Table 1.3.1: Collapsed rating scores

Can’t say

Low

agreement /

satisfaction /

importance

Medium

agreement /

satisfaction/

importance

High

agreement /

satisfaction/

importance

Rating score given 6 1 & 2 3 4 & 5


Secondly, the numeric values recorded for each attribute have been converted into an

overall mean score out of five. To derive the mean score for an attribute, all

respondents’ answers are 'averaged' to produce an overall rating that conveniently

expresses the result of scale items in a single numeric figure. This makes data

interpretation considerably easier when comparing multiple services and facilities. The

mean score excludes those respondents who could not give a valid rating (i.e. 'Can't

Say').

Given that IRIS Research undertakes many community surveys such as this, we are

able to benchmark mean scores. As such, mean importance and satisfaction scores can

be further classified as being a 1 star, 2 star or 3 star score based on this experience.

Table 1.3.2 highlights the mean classifications.

Table 1.3.2: Classification of mean scores

Mean satisfaction scores

0 – 2.99 1 Star

3.00 – 3.74 2 Star

3.75 – 5.00 3 Star

Mean importance scores

0 – 2.99 1 Star

3.00 – 3.99 2 Star

4.00 – 5.00 3 Star


Survey Response

A total of 306 interviews were conducted with residents from the Cowra Shire Local

Government Area (LGA). Strict sampling procedures ensured that characteristics of

selected respondents mirror those of the overall adult population of the area. Table

1.4.1 displays the sample characteristics for selected demographic variables. For a

detailed description of the survey methodology refer to the Appendix.

Table 1.4.1: Sample Respondent Characteristics


Survey Results


Overall Performance

This section presents the overall satisfaction levels amongst residents towards Cowra

Shire Council as an organisation.

Residents were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with Council on a scale of

1 to 5, where 1 = ‘Very dissatisfied’ and 5 = ‘Very Satisfied’. These ratings are also

presented ‘collapsed’ where ‘Low’ = 1 and 2, ‘Medium’ = 3 and ‘High’ = 4 and 5. The

Appendix contains three tables summarising all mean scores and breaks each result

down by demographics to identify statistically significant differences.


2.1 Overall Performance

To gauge the overall performance of Council, residents were asked to rate their level of

overall satisfaction with Cowra Shire Council as an organisation.

Table 2.1.1: Distribution of Overall Satisfaction Ratings

Table 2.1.2: Distribution of Overall Satisfaction Ratings - Collapsed

Mean score 3.8 out of 5

Mean score 3.8 out of 5


Key Results:

Cowra Shire Council received an overall mean satisfaction score of 3.8 out of 5

which is a 3 star category ranking.

In terms or proportions 64% of residents gave a high level of satisfaction, 25%

gave a medium level of satisfaction and only 11% rated Council in the low level of

satisfaction.

Residents that have lived in the LGA greater than 10 years have a higher level of

satisfaction than those that have lived in the area less than 10 years.


Table 2.1.3 below summarises the reason why residents gave the rating they did for

Council's overall performance.

Table 2.1.3: Reason for Satisfaction Rating (%)

Table 2.1.4: Reason for Satisfaction Rating by Level of Satisfaction (%)

2.2

2.2

2.5

4.4

5.5

7.3

7.6

8

60.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Wasting money

Rates_expenses

Waste removal

Upgrade_maintain facilities/services

Unhappy with council

Roads/parking issue/signage

Attracting businesses

Interact with residents

Happy with council


Council Services and Facilities

This section presents the satisfaction levels amongst residents towards 18 key services

and facilities provided by Cowra Shire Council.

Residents were asked to rate the satisfaction of each of the 18 Council services and

facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = ‘Very dissatisfied’ and 5 = ‘Very Satisfied’.

These ratings are also presented ‘collapsed’ where ‘Low’ = 1 and 2, ‘Medium’ = 3 and

‘High’ = 4 and 5. The Appendix contains three tables summarising all mean scores and

breaks each result down by demographics to identify statistically significant differences.


3.1 Satisfaction – Infrastructure

Table 3.1.1: Infrastructure – Satisfaction

Table 3.1.2 Infrastructure – Satisfaction - Collapsed


Key Results:

Mean satisfaction scores for the nine items under the heading of infrastructure

ranged from a relative high of 4.3 out of 5 for ‘provision of waste management

facilities’ through to 3.0 out of 5 for ‘the condition of rural road surfaces’.

Four services and facilities in the infrastructure category achieved a three-star

rating with means scores achieving a satisfaction rating above 3.75. These items

were ‘waste facilities’, ‘recreational areas’, ‘street and directional signage’ and

‘sewerage services’.

The remaining four services and facilities were 2 star rated services and these

were ‘footpaths’, ‘water services’, ‘urban roads’ and ‘rural roads’.


3.2 Satisfaction – Community and Cultural Services & Facilities

Table 3.1.1: Community & Cultural Services & Facilities – Satisfaction

Table 3.1.2: Community & Cultural Services & Facilities – Satisfaction – Collapsed


Key Results:

For the ten items under the category of satisfaction with Community & Cultural

Services & Facilities mean satisfaction scores ranged from a relative high of 4.5

out of 5 for ‘parks and gardens’ through to 3.8 out of 5 for ‘Cowra civic centre’.

All ten items in this category achieved a three star rating with all means scores

achieving a satisfaction rating above 3.75.


3.3 Usage – Community and Cultural Services & Facilities

Table 3.1.1: Community & Cultural Services & Facilities – Usage

Key Results:

A majority of residents have used five of the nine community and cultural

services and facilities in the last 12 months.

The most frequently used are parks and gardens followed by sporting fields and

amenities with 44% and 38% of residents using them respectively.

The Cowra peace precinct and the festival of international understanding are also

well patronised.


Prioritising Services and Facilities

Given the range of services and facilities Cowra Shire Council has to manage, it can

often be a difficult task to prioritise. The sheer number of services and facilities under

management can diffuse focus and distract attention away from the areas of critical

importance to improving resident satisfaction. This section of the report aims to identify

the key drivers of resident satisfaction via a deeper analysis of the satisfaction scores

presented in the previous section.

4.1 Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is a useful way of simultaneously analysing the derived importance a

service holds for residents against their satisfaction with the provision of that service. To

do this, mean satisfaction scores are plotted against derived importance scores for each

Council service or facility. In order to form the quadrants (or opportunity matrix) that

separate higher and lower level priority services combined mean importance and

satisfaction scores were calculated for the entire set of 18 Council services and facilities.

These scores were: Importance score = 4.0 and Satisfaction score = 4.0. Thus, for

example, services or facilities with a mean importance score of less than 4.0 (i.e. a score

lower than the overall mean derived importance score), were classified as having ‘lower’

importance. Conversely, services or facilities with a mean score above 4.0 were

classified as having ‘higher’ importance. The results of the quadrant analysis are

displayed in Chart and Table 4.1.1.

Each of the four quadrants has a specific interpretation:

1. The upper right quadrant (higher importance and higher satisfaction) represents

current Council service strengths.

2. The upper left quadrant (higher importance but relatively lower satisfaction) denotes

services where satisfaction should be improved.

3. The lower left quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively lower satisfaction)

represents lower priority services.


4. The lower right quadrant (relatively lower importance and higher satisfaction) is often

interpreted as representing ‘overkill’ services where effort exceeds expectations.

The attributes in the upper left quadrant are all candidates for immediate attention.

Residents placed a higher importance on these attributes but also reported relatively

lower satisfaction.


Chart 4.1.1: Quadrant analysis for all services and facilities


Table 4.1.1: Opportunities Matrix for Council Services and Facilities

2. HIGHER IMPORTANCE 1. HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION HIGHER SATISFACTION

The condition of urban road surfaces The Festival of International Understanding

The condition of rural road surfaces The provision of waste management (garbage and recycling) facilities

The provision of footpaths The overall appearance of the Cowra region

Indigenous cultural activities (e.g. NAIDOC Week) The provision of sewer services

3. HIGHER IMPORTANCE 4. HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION HIGHER SATISFACTION

Cowra Civic Centre Recreational areas along Lachlan River

The quality of water services Cowra Regional Art Gallery

Cowra Regional Library

Cowra Peace Precinct (inc. POW Campsite)

Cowra Aquatic Centre

Parks and gardens

Sporting fields and sporting amenities

Provision of appropriate street or directional signage


Staff and Councillor Performance

5.1 Resident Contact with Council

“How many times have you contacted Council in the past 12 months?”

Table 5.1.1: Frequency of contact with Council

Key Results:

Overall 57% of residents indicated they have contacted Council in the past 12

months, with 13% contacting council more than 10 times.

43% of residents have not contacted council


5.2 Contact Reason

Residents who could recall having contact with Council staff were then asked a further

question relating to how the resident contacted Council.

“Over the past 12 month, what have you contacted council about?”

Table 5.2.1: Main reason for contacting council

Key Results:

The most common reason for contacting council was in regards to water (23%)

and rates (22%).

Around half of contact was for other reasons. The key themes found in other

included footpaths, trees and sewer.


5.3 Media Used to Contact Council

“On the most recent occasion you contacted Council, how did you make

contact?”

Table 3.3.1: Media Used to contact Council

Key Results:

The most common method to contact council was via the phone with 62% of

residents using this method.

31% of residents visited council premises on the most recent occasion.

Other modes of contact such as email, fax/letter and the internet were used by

less than 3% of residents.


5.4 Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance

After asking about their interaction with Council staff, those respondents who had

contact with a Council employee were asked the following question:

“..how would you rate Council’s staff performance in dealing with your

enquiry?”

Table 5.4.1: Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance


Table 5.4.2: Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance - Collapsed

Key Results:

Mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.5 out of 5 for courteous to 4.2 out of 5 for

prompt.

All four staff performance measurement items fell into the three star rating with

over 75% of residents providing a high satisfaction rating for each item.


5.5 Satisfaction with Councillor Performance

All respondents were asked the following question about Council’s elected representatives.

“How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Councillors?”

Table 5.5.1: Councillor Performance – Satisfaction

Key Results:

Residents rated the overall satisfaction with the performance of Councillors as

3.5 out of 5. This result fits within a two star rated performance.

In terms of proportions 54% gave a high satisfaction rating, 25% gave a medium

rating whilst only 15% gave a low rating.

Mean score 3.5 out of 5 54% high satisfaction 25% medium satisfaction 15% low satisfaction


Council Communications and Media Usage

6.1 Resident Preferred Source of Council Information

“What is your preferred source of information on Council services and

activities?”

Table 6.1.1: Preferred Media Source (%)

Key Results:

The most preferred media source was the local media (papers, radio and TV)

60%.

This was followed by pamphlet or letter box drop (38%) and the quarterly

newsletter (28%).


6.2 Resident Satisfaction with Council Communication

“How satisfied are you with the way Council communicates with you?”

Table 6.2.1: Council Communication with Residents – Satisfaction

Key Results:

Overall 63% of residents rated a high level of satisfaction with the way council

communicates.

This was a mean score of 3.7 out of 5 which is on the cusp of a three star rated

level of satisfaction.

Mean score 3.7 out of 5 63% high satisfaction 24% medium satisfaction 11% low satisfaction


Community Safety and Connectedness

The survey also sought to explore perceptions of safety, social connection and community pride amongst Cowra Shires’ residents. Residents were asked the following question and presented with ten attitude statements:

7.1 Perceptions of Safety and Community Connectedness

“The next section is about your neighbourhood as a place to live. How

much do you agree with each of the following statements?”

Table 7.1.1: Perceptions of safety and connection – Agreement


Table 7.1.2: Perceptions of safety and connection – Agreement - Collapsed

Key Results:

Ten items were used to measure community safety and connectedness. Scores

ranged from a relative high of 4.6 out of 5 for ‘I can call on a neighbour or local

relative if I need assistance’ through to 4.0 out of 5 for ‘I make a contribution to

the community I live in’.

All ten items are rated as three star items, indicated a high level of community

connectedness and feelings of safety.

Significantly over 70% of residents gave a high agreement level rating for all ten

items measured.


7.2 Volunteering

“Are you a member of any of the following types of local volunteer or social

groups?”

Table 7.1.1: Volunteering (%)

Key Results:

The most popular social group membership or volunteer is with community

groups (33%) and sporting groups (29%). Around 1 in 4 residents are a member

or volunteer at a Church or school group.


Strategic Planning

The survey also sought to explore perceptions of safety, social connection and community pride amongst Cowra Shires’ residents. Residents were asked the following question and presented with ten attitude statements:

8.1 Importance of Infrastructure

“Could you please indicate how important the following types of services

and infrastructure are to you”

Table 8.1.1: Infrastructure – Importance


Table 8.1.1: Infrastructure – Importance - Collapsed

Key Results:

Mean importance scores for local infrastructure ranged from a high of 4.6 for

roads through to 4.1 for cultural facilities.

All nine infrastructure items are rated as three star importance with all mean

scores being greater than 4.0 out of 5.

The items of roads, supporting business and waste management were rated by

over 90% of residents as being of high importance to them.


8.2 Importance of Infrastructure Renewal and Maintenance

“How important is it for Council to renew and maintain each type of

services and infrastructure at an acceptable level?”

Table 8.2.1: Infrastructure renewal and maintenance – Importance


Table 8.2.2: Infrastructure renewal and maintenance – Importance - Collapsed

Key Results:

Overall a very high importance was attached to residents’ belief that council

renew and maintain each of the nine categories of infrastructure measured.

Mean importance scores ranged from 4.7 for water infrastructure through to 4.3

for cultural facilities.

Again all nine items rated as being in the three star importance classification with

over 90% of residents rating seven of the nine items as being of high importance.


8.3 Resident Willingness for Rate Increase - Infrastructure

“Would you consider paying higher rates to direct towards any of these

priorities?”

Table 8.3.1: Willingness to fund infrastructure (%)

Key Results:

When asked 40% of residents agreed they would be willing to pay higher rates to

direct towards any of the priorities measured.


8.4 Resident Perceptions of Council’s Planning

“How much do you agree with the following statement? Cowra Shire Council plans well for the region’s future”

Table 8.4.1: Perceptions of Council Planning - Agreement (%)

Key Results:

43% of residents agreed that Cowra shire council plans well for the region’s

future. This converted into a mean agreement score of 3.3 out of 5 which is a

two star level of agreement.

Mean score 3.3 out of 5 43% high agreement 33% medium agreement 23% low agreement


Appendix 1

9.1 ANOVA Tables


ANOVA – SATISFACTION INFRASTRUCTURE

ANOVA – SATISFACTION COMMUNITY CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Male Female 18-49 50-64 65+ <= 5 yrs 6 to 10 yrs 10+ yrs Overall

The condition of urban road surfaces 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 2.9 3.4 3.4

The condition of rural road surfaces 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0

Provision of appropriate street or directional signage4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1

The provision of footpaths 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.4 2.7 3.8 3.6 3.6

The quality of water services 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.5

The provision of sewer services 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.1 4.1

The provision of waste management (garbage and recycling) facilities4.2 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.3

Recreational areas along Lachlan River 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.1

Male Female 18-49 50-64 65+ <= 5 yrs 6 to 10 yrs 10+ yrs Overall

Cowra Civic Centre 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.8

Cowra Regional Art Gallery 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.2

Cowra Regional Library 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.2

Cowra Peace Precinct (inc. POW Campsite) 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.4 3.8 4.2 4.2

Cowra Aquatic Centre 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.6 4.3 4.2

Parks and gardens 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.5

Sporting fields and sporting amenities 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.5

Indigenous cultural activities (e.g. NAIDOC Week) 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.6 4.2 3.9 3.9

The Festival of International Understanding 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1

The overall appearance of the Cowra region 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3


ANOVA – SATISFACTION

ANOVA – SATISFACTION COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CONNECTEDNESS

Male Female 18-49 50-64 65+ <= 5 yrs6 to 10 yrs 10+ yrs Overall

Satisfaction with the way Council communicates 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.7

Satisfaction with the overall performance of Councillors 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 2.6 3.6 3.5

Overall satisfaction with Council 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.7 2.9 3.8 3.8

Male Female 18-49 50-64 65+ <= 5 yrs6 to 10 yrs 10+ yrs Overall

I feel safe in my own home 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.6 4.5

I feel safe walking around my neighbourhood 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.5 4.4

I can call on a neighbour or local relative if I need assistance4.7 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.6

I feel I belong to the community I live in 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.4

My neighbourhood is a friendly place to live. 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.5

I make a contribution to the community I live in 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.3 4.2 4.0 4.0

I mainly socialise in my local area 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.1

I feel Cowra Shire has a strong sense of community 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.2

People in Cowra are generally proud of their area. 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.6 3.8 4.2 4.1

I would recommend the Cowra region to others as a good place to live4.2 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 3.9 4.3 4.3


9.2 Methodology

Sample Design

A telephone-based survey aiming to secure a response from approximately 300

residents from throughout the Cowra Shire LGA was used. The survey unit was

permanent residents of the Cowra Shire Local Government Area who had lived there for

6 months or longer. Respondents also had to be aged 18 years or older to qualify for an

interview. The 2011 Census was used to establish quotas to ensure a good distribution

of responses by age and sex.

The sample base for the survey was the electronic White Pages. This sample is known

to be sub optimal, as the churn of telephone numbers due to people moving and new

numbers being added as dwellings are occupied affects about 12% to 15% of possible

numbers. Furthermore, from previous research we know that the proportion of silent

numbers is increasing and can be as high as 25-30% in some areas. To deal with these

issues, IRIS Research uses a technique that starts with the population of numbers listed

in the telephone book and adds new and unlisted numbers using the ‘half open’ method.

In this method, all numbers were incremented by five to create new numbers in the

‘gaps’ between the listed numbers. The resultant universe of numbers was then de-

duplicated to remove any numbers that may be repeated. This process was replicated

five times to create a new theoretical universe of telephone numbers. This provided the

opportunity for all potential numbers to be selected in the sample. This equal and known

opportunity for selection is the first criterion of good random sampling.

Once the potential universe of numbers had been generated, a computer program was

used to randomise the database. Following this, a sequential sample (e.g. every 110th

number) was extracted from the database. The sample was geographically stratified and

evenly distributed within strata. This process gave a very even distribution of potential

numbers across the whole survey area. Every household therefore had an equal and

known chance of selection and every part of the survey area received a fair proportional

representation in the final sample drawn.


Data Collection

Interviews were conducted over two evenings on the 14th and 16th May, 2016. Calls were

made between 4.30 and 8.30 p.m. If the selected person was unavailable at that time to

do the survey, call-backs were scheduled for a later time or day. Unanswered numbers

were retried three times throughout the period of the survey. These procedures ensure a

good sampling process from the sample frame used so that statistical inferences could

be made about the entire resident population.

Non-private numbers and faxes reached during the selection process were excluded

from the sample.

The survey was implemented under IQCA quality guidelines. Interviews were conducted

using our Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. Continuous

interviewer monitoring was used and post interview validations were conducted within

five days of the close of the survey.

Response Performance

At the end of the survey period, 306 completed interviews had been collected. The table

below shows the compliance rate achieved for the entire sample. The compliance rate is

the number of refusals as a proportion of completed surveys plus refusals. A compliance

rate of 66% is a good result.

Table 8.4.1 Survey compliance rate

Response sequence Outcome

Interviews 306 Refusals 157 Valid contacts (Excludes disqualified – businesses, out of area, under 18yrs etc.) 463

Compliance rate 66%


Survey Accuracy

When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about

±5.7% at the 95% confidence level, assuming a proportional response of 50%. Put

another way, we can be confident that if the survey were to be repeated there would be

a 95% chance that the new result would lie within ±5.7% of the result achieved in this

survey.


Disclaimer All possible care has been taken in the preparation of this information. However Illawarra Regional Information Service expressly disclaims any liability for the accuracy and sufficiency of the information and under no circumstances shall be liable in negligence or otherwise in and arising out of the preparation or supply of any of the information aforesaid. Persons who utilise the information provided herein do so at their own risk. It is recommended that before any reliance is placed upon the information provided, independent, expertise advice be sought.

2016 cowra shire council community survey -...

Documents