j00858 css 2020 state-wide report - local government · 2020. 6. 9. · art centres and libraries...
Post on 19-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2020 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
State-wide ReportCoordinated by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on behalf of Victorian councils
Contents
2
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Background and objectives 4
Key findings and recommendations 5
Detailed findings 13
Overall performance 14
Customer service 29
Communication 38
Council direction 43
Individual service areas 50
Community consultation and engagement 51
Lobbying on behalf of the community 55
Decisions made in the interest of the community
59
Condition of the sealed local roads 63
Informing the community 67
Condition of local streets and footpaths 71
Traffic management 75
Parking facilities 79
Enforcement of local laws 83
Family support services 87
Elderly support services 91
Disadvantaged support services 95
Recreational facilities 99
The appearance of public areas 103
Art centres and libraries 107
Community and cultural activities 111
Waste management 115
Business and community development and tourism
119
Council's general town planning policy 123
Planning and building permits 127
Environmental sustainability 131
Emergency and disaster management 135
Planning for population growth 139
Roadside slashing and weed control 143
Maintenance of unsealed roads 147
Business and community development 151
Tourism development 155
Contents
3
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Detailed demographics 159
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences
167
Appendix B: Further project information 172
The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey (CSS) creates a vital interface between the council and their community.
Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local people about the place they live, work and play and provides confidence for councils in their efforts and abilities.
Now in its twenty-first year, this survey provides insight into community views on:
• councils’ overall performance, with benchmarking against State-wide and council group results
• community consultation and engagement
• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community
• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and
• overall council direction.
When coupled with previous data, the survey provides a reliable historical source of the community’s views since 1998. A selection of results from the last nine years shows that councils in Victoria continue to provide services that meet the public’s expectations.
Serving Victoria for 21 years
Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-wide report, which contains the aggregated results, analysis and data for all councils. Moreover, with 21 years of results, the CSS offers councils a long-term measure of how they are performing – essential for councils that work over the long term to provide valuable services and infrastructure to their communities.
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.
Background and objectives
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
4
Key findings and recommendations
5
State-wide performance – at a glance
6
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.
Metropolitan 66
State-wide 58
Interface 56
80
44
7849
8053
-36 -29 -26
74
72
70
Top 3 performing areas
Top 3 areas for improvement
Unsealed roads Slashing & weed control
Community decisions
PerformanceImportance Net differential
Regional Centres 56
Large Rural 55
Small Rural 56
Art centres and libraries
Appearance of public areas
Recreational facilities
Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number, which may result in differences of +/-1% in the importance and performance scores and the net differential scores.
Summary of core measures
7
Index scores
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
71 71 7270 69 69 70 71 70
55 55 54 53 53 56 54
60 60 61 60 59 59 59 6058
57 5757 56
54 55 56 5557
55 54 54 54 55
5355 55
56 5553
5454 54
5352 53 53 5351
53 5253
51
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Sealed local roads
Community consultation
Customer service
Overall council
direction
Overall performance
Lobbying Making community decisions
Summary of core measures
8
Core measures summary results (%)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
9
8
6
7
11
31
37
30
24
29
32
36
36
32
32
33
28
17
11
15
13
14
16
7
6
7
6
8
11
6
1
8
19
9
1
1
Overall performance
Community consultation
Lobbying
Making community decisions
Sealed local roads
Customer service
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
18 61 16 5Overall Council Direction
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
Services State-wide 2020
State-wide2019
Highestscore
Lowestscore
Overall performance 58 60 Metropolitan Aged 50-64 years
Overall council direction 51 53 Aged 18-34 years
Aged 50-64 years
Customer service 70 71 Metropolitan
Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural, Men,
Interface
Art centres & libraries 74 74 Metropolitan Aged 18-34 years, Interface
Appearance of public areas 72 72Metropolitan, Small Rural
ShiresInterface
Recreational facilities 70 70 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires, Interface
Elderly support services 68 68 Small Rural Shires
Regional Centres
Community & cultural 68 69Aged 65+ years,
Metropolitan, Women, Aged 35-49 years
Aged 18-34 years, Interface
Emergency & disaster mngt 68 72Regional
Centres, Aged 65+ years
Aged 50-64 years, Interface,
Metropolitan
Family support services 66 67 Aged 65+ years, Metropolitan
Aged 50-64 years, Interface
Summary of State-wide performance
9
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2019 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.
Services State-wide 2020
State-wide 2019
Highestscore
Lowestscore
Waste management 65 68 Aged 65+ years, Metropolitan
Large Rural Shires
Enforcement of local laws 63 64 Aged 18-34 years Interface
Tourism development 62 63
Small Rural Shires, Women,
Regional Centres, Aged 18-34 years,
Aged 65+
Interface
Disadvantaged support serv. 60 62 Aged 65+ years,
MenAged 50-64
years
Environmental sustainability 60 62 Metropolitan Interface
Informing the community 59 60 MetropolitanRegional
Centres, Aged 50-64 years
Bus/community dev./tourism 59 61 Interface Aged 50-64
years
Business & community dev. 59 61 Aged 18-34 years
Aged 50-64 years
Local streets & footpaths 58 59 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires, Interface
Traffic management 58 58 Small Rural Shires Interface
Summary of State-wide performance
10
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2019 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.
Services State-wide 2020
State-wide2019
Highestscore
Lowestscore
Consultation & engagement 55 56 Metropolitan
Aged 50-64 years, Regional
Centres
Parking facilities 55 56 Small Rural Shires
Regional Centres
Town planning policy 54 55 Aged 18-34 years
Aged 50-64 years
Sealed local roads 54 56 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires
Lobbying 53 54Metropolitan, Aged 18-34
years
Aged 50-64 years
Community decisions 53 55 Metropolitan Aged 50-64 years
Building & planning permits 51 52 Regional Centres
Small Rural Shires
Population growth 51 52 Regional Centres
Small Rural Shires
Slashing & weed control 49 56 Aged 18-34 years
Aged 50-64 years
Unsealed roads 44 44 Regional Centres
Aged 50-64 years
Summary of State-wide performance
11
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2019 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.
Focus areas for the next 12 months
12
Positive ratings of Victorian Councils’ best performing service areas (arts centres and libraries, appearance of public areas and recreational facilities) have been maintained. However, perceptions of performance on most other service areas and of overall Council performance have declined in the past year – most markedly on roadside slashing and weed control, emergency and disaster management and waste management.
Overview
Victorian Councils should focus on maintaining and improving performance in the individual service areas that most influence perceptions of overall performance. State-wide, these are: Council decisions made in the interest of the community, the condition of sealed roads (excluding those managed by VicRoads) and town planning.
Key influences on perceptions of overall
performance
Metropolitan Councils perform most strongly, ahead of those in the Regional, Rural and Interface Council groups. Across a majority of individual service areas – Metropolitan Councils typically rate above the State-wide average, Regional Centre Councils rate in line with the State-wide average, Interface and Large Rural Councils rate below the State-wide average, and rated performance of Small Rural Councils is mixed.
Area grouping comparisons
Progress on core measures
Perceptions of Council performance declined on all core measures this year, however decreases have been small (1 to 2 points). A focus on good customer service, engagement with residents, transparency and community interest in Council decision making, and attending to the condition of local roads, can help improve community perceptions over the next 12 months.
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
DETAILED FINDINGS
13
Overall performance
14
Overall performance
15
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
The overall performance index score of 58 for Councils State-wide represents a significant two-point decrease on the 2019 result. Overall performance is at its lowest level since 2012, having peaked at an index score of 61 in 2014 and hovered around 59 to 60 in other years. Perceptions of Councils’ overall performance have declined across all geographic and demographic cohorts over the past year.
The performance of Metropolitan Councils (group index score of 66) continues to rate significantly higher than the State-wide average, at the 95% confidence level. In contrast, other Council groups rate significantly lower than the State-wide average at 55 index points for the Large Rural group and a slightly better 56 index points for each of the Interface, Small Rural and Regional Centres groups.
Demographically, Victoria’s youngest (18 to 34 years) and oldest (65+ years) adults are most positive about their Council’s performance (index scores of 61 and 59, respectively – above the State-wide average). This contrasts with the two middle age cohorts (35 to 49 and 50 to 64 years), who rate Council performance as below the State-wide average (index scores of 56 and 54, respectively).
State-wide, almost three times as many residents rate the overall performance of their Council as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (46%) as those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ (17%). A further 36% sit mid-scale, rating Council performance as ‘average’.
Overall performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.
State-wide58
Metropolitan rate overall performance highest (66)
Aged 50-64 years rate overall performance lowest (54)
Metropolitan66
Interface 56
Regional Centres56
Large Rural55
Small Rural56
67
63
61
60
60
59
61
58
58
58
56
56
65
62
59
59
59
58
60
57
56
58
56
54
64
62
60
60
59
58
60
57
58
57
54
55
66
62
59
60
59
58
61
57
57
55
54
55
67
64
61
61
60
59
62
59
59
58
56
57
n/a
65
62
62
61
60
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
65
61
61
60
60
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
65
61
61
60
59
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
Overall performance
2020 overall performance (index scores)
66
61
59
59
58
57
56
56
56
56
55
54
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Men
Interface
35-49
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Large Rural
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
16
2019 2018 2017 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, BUTOVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Overall performance
17
2020 overall performance (%)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
9109991011109
13787899
877
11
3739
373636
3940
4040
463635
3334
3637
4536
3034
3635
363736
3535
3536
3036
3640
3735
3733
3639
37
1110
111011
109
109
611
13131312
109
1214
10
65
555
44443
7867754
785
11222111112121111112
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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, BUTOVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62
The top three performing service areas State-wide in 2020, with index scores unchanged from last year, are art centres and libraries (index score of 74), the appearance of public areas (index score of 72) and recreational facilities (index score of 70).
Further to these results, 10% of residents State-wide volunteer parks and gardens as the best aspect of their local Council (the leading response) and 8% of residents volunteer recreational / sporting facilities.
Metropolitan Councils are rated as performing above the State-wide average on these top three service areas, while other Council groupings are rated in line with the State-wide average or lower.
Apart from these leading service areas, positive Council performance ratings on elderly support services (index score of 68) and traffic management (index score of 58) also remained unchanged since 2019.
However, State-wide, performance ratings for most service areas have decreased significantly over the past year, after improving in 2019. Following a devastating 2019-20 bushfire season, this includes a four-point decrease on emergency and disaster management, as well as a three-point decrease on waste management, to (still relatively high) index scores of 68 and 65, respectively. Declines in these two areas have been across all geographic areas.
Top performing service areas
18
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Similar to previous years, art centresand libraries (index score of 74) is the area where Councils State-wide performed best in 2020.
Councils State-wide rate lowest in the areas of unsealed roads (index score of 44, unchanged from 2019) and slashing and weed control (index score of 49).
Among declines in performance across most service areas since last year, the sharpest has been on slashing and weed control (down seven points) and this decrease has been across all geographic areas. Only the Interface Council group (index score of 54) are rated above ‘average’ on slashing and weed control, with Small and Large Rural Councils (index score of 48 each) rating poorly, in line with the State-wide average.
The maintenance of unsealed roads continues to stand out as in need of attention. While Councils in Regional Centres have improved performance since 2019 (index score of 55, up three points), Interface Councils have declined (index score of 43, down seven points) and Small and Large Rural Councils continue to rate poorly (index scores of 43 and 42, respectively).
However, unprompted, 12% of residents volunteer sealed roads as the Council area most in need of improvement.
Low performing service areas
19
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Councils State-wide continue to rate lowest in the area of unsealed roads (index score of 44). Slashing and weed control also rates poorly in 2020 (down 7 points to an index score of 49).
7472
70686868
6665
6362
6060
595959
5858
5555
5454
5353
5151
4944
Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas
Recreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural
Emergency & disaster mngtElderly support servicesFamily support services
Waste managementEnforcement of local laws
Tourism developmentDisadvantaged support serv.Environmental sustainabilityBus/community dev./tourismBusiness & community dev.
Informing the communityTraffic management
Local streets & footpathsParking facilities
Consultation & engagementSealed local roads
Town planning policyLobbying
Community decisionsPlanning & building permits
Population growthSlashing & weed control
Unsealed roads
Individual service area performance
2020 individual service area performance (index scores)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
20
747270697268676864636262616160585956565655545552525644
747169697168667064636163606059575856555354545452525543
737170697068677164636164616059595755555353545451525344
727169696968667063636163606059595756545452535450515643
737270697069677266636264616061605857565554555554545545
757271707170687366646464626262605857575555565753545545
737170697069677165n/a626462n/a6160585757n/a5555n/a55545644
737170687069677265n/a636462n/a6058575657n/a5455n/a54526146
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Individual service area performance
21
2020 individual service area performance (%)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
262423
201717
121213
101315
101191011
889
7766765
4543
4240
4236
383534
383430
3332
333230
333027
292527
2423
2220
211922
2326
222732
283029
2033
283232
2132
3228
3323
303230
2730
63
6105
58
1315
1310
510
1616
115
1015
1914
714
1317
1421
21
35
22
45
87
32
3118
42
47
158
36
68
817
110
43
919
12333
1028
1112
1231
148
29
361819
1422
6
Appearance of public areasArt centres & librariesRecreational facilitiesWaste management
Community & culturalEmergency & disaster mngt
Enforcement of local lawsInforming the communityLocal streets & footpaths
Traffic managementTourism development
Elderly support servicesEnvironmental sustainability
Sealed local roadsParking facilities
Bus/community dev./tourismFamily support services
Business & community dev.Consultation & engagement
Slashing & weed controlCommunity decisions
Disadvantaged support serv.Town planning policy
LobbyingPopulation growth
Planning & building permitsUnsealed 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: 62
8280808080
797878
767575
74747474
737272
7171
7069
6867
656262
Waste managementEmergency & disaster mngt
Unsealed roadsElderly support services
Community decisionsSealed local roads
Local streets & footpathsSlashing & weed control
Population growthInforming the communityFamily support services
Disadvantaged support serv.Environmental sustainabilityConsultation & engagementAppearance of public areas
Traffic managementRecreational facilitiesTown planning policy
Planning & building permitsParking facilities
Enforcement of local lawsBusiness & community dev.
LobbyingBus/community dev./tourism
Art centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural
Individual service area importance
2020 individual service area importance (index scores)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
22
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
818180808079777477757474747473737273717171696765655961
818180798080787377757472737474747373717171696866656161
798079787978777476747371727474727272727071706967646261
808079788078777376767373737574727373717070706967666362
798078798076777375757373737473717272717071696967656562
798078797977777575757272737473707272717070697067666562
79808179n/an/a787475757373727374727273717171n/a706766n/a62
78808080n/an/a777175757373717373737272717170n/a706666n/a62
Individual service area importance
2020 individual service area importance (%)
4439
463839
423638
3237
3129
2529
3429
2427262726
2123
2117
1316
4242
35434137
4239
4237
4242
4742
3741
4539
3938
384138
3839
3633
1115
1316
1517
1919
221920
2125
23202326
2626252630
2730
3238
35
12
42
22234
544
24
55
46
4675
889
1012
111
11111
111
1211
111
22
22223
111211
122
111
1431121111
Waste managementElderly support services
Emergency & disaster mngtSealed local roads
Community decisionsUnsealed roads
Local streets & footpathsSlashing & weed controlInforming the community
Population growthFamily support services
Disadvantaged support serv.Appearance of public areasConsultation & engagementEnvironmental sustainability
Traffic managementRecreational facilities
Parking facilitiesTown planning policy
Planning & building permitsEnforcement of local laws
Business & community dev.Lobbying
Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesCommunity & culturalTourism development
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
23Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
807880
7679
7178
7472
8275
7168
737474
8080
69
Unsealed roadsSlashing & weed control
Community decisionsPopulation growthSealed local roads
Planning & building permitsLocal streets & footpaths
Consultation & engagementTown planning policyWaste management
Informing the communityParking facilities
LobbyingTraffic management
Environmental sustainabilityDisadvantaged support serv.Emergency & disaster mngt
Elderly support servicesBusiness & community dev.
4449
535154
5158
5554
6559
5553
586060
6868
59
Individual service areas importance vs performance
24Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential
Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is necessary.
-36-29-26-25-25-20-20-19-19-17-16-16-15-15-14-14-12-12-10
We use regression analysis to investigate the influence of individual service areas, such as decisions made in the community interest, the condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the independent variables), on respondent perceptions of overall Council performance (the dependent variable).
Prior to running this analysis, the 27 individual service areas evaluated in this survey were tested for normality, linearity and multicollinearity. Because some of the data possessed some or more of these features, the 27 service area items were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge. Seven key factors / themes emerged around:
• Informing, consulting, deciding for the community
• Local roads
• Planning (including traffic / parking)
• Maintenance, overall management of public areas
• Community facilities, activities
• Business, community development, tourism
• Support services.
Regression analysis was then performed using the most representative individual service area from each of these seven factors / themes as our independent variables.
In the following chart, the horizontal axis represents the Council performance index for each key service area –community decisions, sealed roads, town planning, public areas, community and cultural activities, business, community development and tourism, and family support services. Service areas appearing on the right-side of the chart have a higher performance index than those on the left (i.e. Council performance is rated more highly by residents).
The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta Coefficient from the multiple regression performed. This measures the contribution of each service area to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart have a greater positive effect on overall performance ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.
Regression analysis explained
25
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
The individual service area that has the strongest influence on the overall performance rating for Councils State-wide (based on regression analysis) is:
• Decisions made in the interest of the community.
Good communication and transparency with residents about decisions made in their community’s interest provides the greatest opportunity to drive up overall opinion of Council performance.
Other key service areas with a positive influence on overall performance include:
• The condition of sealed local roads, excluding VicRoads
• Town planning
• The appearance of public areas
• Community and cultural activities
• Business, community development and tourism
• Family support services.
Looking at these service areas, the appearance of public areas has a high performance index and a moderate influence on the overall performance rating. Councils State-wide currently perform very well in this area (performance index of 72) and should continue to attend to public areas to maintain this positive result.
Community and cultural activities and family support services also have relatively high performance ratings (index scores of 68 and 66, respectively) and some influence on overall performance. Therefore Councils should also seek to maintain standards here to help shore up positive perceptions of these service areas as well as Council performance overall.
However, there is greater work to be done in service areas that have a moderate influence on overall perceptions but perform less well, such as the condition of sealed local roads and town planning (performance index of 54 and 53, respectively). In addition, while currently a lesser influence on the overall performance rating, business, community development and tourism sits only mid-range on performance, relative to other service areas (index of 59).
Working to improve perceptions of Council processes and decisions around town planning and other community development issues, as well as attending to resident concerns about sealed local roads, can also help to improve overall performance ratings for Councils State-wide.
Influences on perceptions of overall performance
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
26
Influence on overall performance: key service areas
27
The 27 performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine factors / ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against overall performance ratings. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.573 and adjusted R-square value of 0.572, which means that 57% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 688.4.
2020 regression analysis (key service areas)
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
12
10
8
7
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
Sealed Road Maintenance
Community Consultation
Communication
Waste Management
Financial Management
Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape
Environmental Issues
Development - Inappropriate /Over-development
Parking Availability
Rates - Too Expensive
Traffic Management
Footpaths/Walking Tracks
Informing the Community
Local/Community Support
Nothing
10
9
8
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
Parks and Gardens
Customer Service
Recreational/Sporting Facilities
Waste Management
Road/Street Maintenance
Generally Good - Overall/No Complaints
Community/Public Events/Activities
Community Support Services
Public Areas
Community Engagement/Involvement/Communication
Library/Mobile Library/Facilities/Services/Staff)
Best things about Council and areas for improvement
28
2020 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -
2020 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 40 Verbatim listings of responses to these questions can be found in the accompanying dashboard.
Customer service
29
Customer service
The customer service index of Councils State-wide is 70 in 2020, down one-point from 2019, but equal to 2018.
The Metropolitan Council group (index score of 74) continue to perform better on customer service than the State-wide average but have declined two points since last year. Councils in Regional Centres have experienced a similar decline over the past year (index score of 70, down two points).
State-wide, customer service ratings are high for the main methods of contact with Council, being in-person (index score of 75) and by telephone (index score of 72). Although used by only a small number of residents to date, customer service via text message is also rated highly (index score of 75).
However, while still highly rated overall, there has been a six-point decline among those whose most recent customer service transactions occurred through Council websites (index score of 70).
State-wide, two thirds of residents (67%) provide a positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’, including 31% of residents who rate Councils’ customer service as ‘very good’. This is slightly fewer than 2019 (69% and 33%, respectively).
Contact with council and customer service
30
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Contact with Council
More than six in ten (64%) residents State-wide have had contact with their Council in the last 12 months, a similar rate of contact to last year. Residents aged 35 to 49 years (71%) and 50 to 64 years (68%) continue to have more contact with Councils than those aged 65+ years (60%) and 18 to 34 years (58%).
By telephone (36%) and in person (29%) remain the main methods of contact however the use of email and social media continues to grow.
Among those who have had contact with their council, 67% provide a
positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’, including 31% who rate councils’ customer service
as ‘very good’.
Contact with council
2020 contact with council (%)Have had contact
61 60 61 6159 59
62 6264
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
31Q5. 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 as Facebook 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: 62
69
68
64
64
63
62
60
62
61
59
58
55
68
66
64
64
63
62
59
61
60
60
59
55
66
63
63
60
60
59
56
57
58
59
56
52
65
62
61
60
59
58
56
57
58
58
56
52
69
63
64
58
61
61
59
59
60
60
57
55
69
64
n/a
n/a
63
61
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
57
56
66
64
n/a
n/a
62
60
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
56
55
69
65
n/a
n/a
64
62
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
58
56
Contact with council
2020 contact with council (%)
71
68
67
65
65
64
62
62
62
61
60
58
35-49
50-64
Small Rural
Interface
Women
Overall
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Metropolitan
65+
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
32
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 as Facebook 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: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
76
73
73
72
71
71
70
70
69
69
69
69
72
72
72
72
70
69
69
69
70
68
67
68
71
71
72
72
69
69
68
69
69
66
66
68
73
71
72
70
69
68
69
69
70
67
67
69
73
72
72
71
70
69
70
70
72
68
67
70
n/a
74
73
n/a
72
71
71
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
70
n/a
74
72
n/a
71
70
71
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
70
n/a
74
73
n/a
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
70
Customer service rating
33
2020 customer service rating (index scores)
74
72
72
70
70
70
70
70
68
68
68
68
Metropolitan
65+
Women
Regional Centres
Overall
18-34
35-49
Small Rural
Interface
Men
Large Rural
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 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: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Customer service rating
34
2020 customer service rating (%)
3133
3130303132
3131
3528
342931
2835
2931
2935
3636
36363637
383837
3738
3435
3738
3538
3735
35
1717
18181717
161717
151917
1918
1816
1817
1916
778
888
7786
67
97
87
68
97
666
666
5554
777775
76
86
11122212122111122111
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 62
Method of contact with council
2020 method of contact (%)
3637 39
3532 32
36 35 36
34
29 30 3229 28
3028 29
13 14 15 13 13 14
18 18
21
1816 16
14
12 1113
1113
1211 12 9 8 8
109 11
12 2 3
3 45 5
7
1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
35
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 26 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%
By EmailBy Text Message
By SocialMedia
In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone
76
70
73
76
71
66
64
74
57
71
75
72
64
65
76
84
73
75
69
65
61
74
79
71
76
74
69
62
77
79
73
75
66
68
66
77
82
75
74
73
70
69
74
61
72
73
75
68
68
75
68
73
75
79
73
69
Customer service rating by method of last contact
2020 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)
75
75
72
70
70
66
64
In person
By text message
By telephone
Via website
By social media
By email
In writing
36
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 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: 26 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Customer service rating by method of last contact
2020 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)
40
42
36
21
25
28
19
34
37
33
48
44
36
38
14
7
19
18
19
18
23
5
10
7
6
5
10
7
5
5
6
3
5
8
8
1
1
4
3
1
6
In person
By text message
By telephone
Via website
By social media
By email
In writing
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
37
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 26
Communication
38
State-wide, the preferred form of communication from Councils remains newsletters sent via mail (29%) or email (25%). While still the leading source overall, interest in mailed newsletters has declined since 2016.
• Preferred forms of communication among under 50sremain newsletters sent via email (26%) or mail (25%), as well as social media (24%).
• Preferred form of communication among over 50sremains newsletters sent via mail (34%).
The greatest change since 2019 has been a two-point decrease in preference for Council newsletters as an insert in a local newspaper (9%, down from 11%).
Simply putting information on a Council website is the least preferred form of communication, overall and among under and over 50s (2% overall and for both groups).
Communication
39
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Newsletters remain the preferred method of communication from
Council (29% mailed, 25% emailed).
Best form of communication
40
2020 best form of communication (%)
4239 39 39 39
3432
28 29
18 1921 22
24 25 26
25
25
18 18 17 1614 15 14
1312
15 1514 15
13 12 12 119
2 3 3 3 4 58
5 62
2 2 22 3
22 2
13 14
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Council Website
Text Message
Council Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council Newsletter
via Mail
Council Newsletter via Email
Advertising in a Local
Newspaper
SocialMedia
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
Best form of communication: under 50s
2020 under 50s best form of communication (%)
41
3937 36 35
37
3230
25 2521 21
24 2527 28
28 26 26
18 1916 15
12 1311
9
7
14 14 14 1310
109
6 535 5 5 5 8
12
88
32 2 3
34
3 22
22 24
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Council Website
Text Message
Council Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council Newsletter
via Mail
Council Newsletter via Email
Advertising in a Local
Newspaper
SocialMedia
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?. Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
Best form of communication: over 50s
2020 over 50s best form of communication (%)
42
46
42 43 42 41
37
3331
34
1516
18 1821 21
2524 23
18 18
1817 16 18 17
17 16
1617
1518
15 15 15 15 12
1 1 1 1 2 3 4
2
31
1 1 22 2 2
2 2
46
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Council Website
Text Message
Council Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council Newsletter
via Mail
Council Newsletter via Email
Advertising in a Local
Newspaper
SocialMedia
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
Council direction
43
Over the last 12 months, 61% State-wide believe the direction of Council’s overall performance has stayed the same, down one point on 2019.
• 18% believe the direction has improved in the last 12 months (down one point on 2019).
• 16% believe it has deteriorated, up two points on 2019.
• The most satisfied with their Council’s direction are those aged 18 to 34 years and residents of the Metropolitan council group.
• The least satisfied with their Council’s direction are those aged 50 to 64 years and residents of the Interface council group.
All groups demographic groups and Council groupings experienced a decline in their index score on this measure in 2020, with the Metropolitan group (index 54, down one point) and those aged 35 to 49 years (49, down one point) the only groups not to decline significantly.
Council direction
44
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
More rate Council performance as improved since last year than
deteriorated – but views are more sceptical than last year
Overall council direction last 12 months
45
2020 overall direction (index scores)
55
54
52
51
51
50
50
50
50
49
48
47
18-34
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
65+
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
35-49
Interface
50-64
57
55
54
53
53
53
52
51
52
50
54
50
57
54
53
52
52
50
53
52
51
50
53
48
56
54
54
53
54
52
55
52
52
51
53
50
56
55
52
51
51
50
51
48
51
49
54
48
58
56
55
53
53
53
53
51
52
51
54
51
57
n/a
55
53
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
52
51
n/a
50
57
n/a
54
53
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
52
51
n/a
50
56
n/a
52
52
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
51
49
n/a
48
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Overall council direction last 12 months
2020 overall council direction (%)
18
19
19
19
18
20
20
19
18
17
16
20
16
19
17
18
20
16
15
18
61
62
60
62
62
63
63
63
64
67
59
55
63
58
61
62
64
62
60
60
16
14
15
13
15
13
13
13
15
10
19
21
16
19
18
15
11
19
21
17
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
6
6
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
6
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
46
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 62
Room for improvement in services
2020 room for improvement in services (%)
49
47
44
46
40
47
41
46
47
43
47
58
48
49
44
52
53
46
42
45
45
42
48
44
50
46
45
46
44
37
43
42
49
41
40
40
5
5
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
3
5
6
4
4
4
8
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
4
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say
47
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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
Right / wrong direction
48
2020 right / wrong direction (%)
1720
1718202021
191820
128
1722
181618
1316
20
4647
4747
4849
5250
4953
4130
4842
4448
504740
45
1311
1412
910
910
119
1424
1311
1313
1314
1511
141111
109
108
1012
82132
1311
1513
1117
1712
101111
1314
1110101010
126
914
1011
89
1212
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong directionDefinitely wrong direction Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 10
Rates / services trade-off
49
2020 rates / services trade-off (%)
910910101011111198
66
1111
79889
2423
232121
232525
2930
2621
202323
2529
2420
23
242224
2322
2224
222225
242325
222226
3024
2320
252724
2728
2623
2422
1922
3128
242623
2025
2827
1918
1920191817181616
1918
212018
2013
192122
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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 cutsDefinitely prefer service cuts Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 13
Individual service areas
50
Community consultation and engagement importance
51
2020 consultation and engagement importance (index scores)
77
76
75
76
75
75
76
74
71
70
71
68
77
74
76
76
76
75
75
74
72
70
72
68
78
75
75
76
75
75
76
74
72
72
72
67
78
77
76
77
76
76
75
75
73
75
73
72
78
76
75
76
75
76
74
74
72
72
72
68
77
n/a
74
76
n/a
76
n/a
74
71
n/a
n/a
68
77
n/a
74
75
n/a
74
n/a
73
71
n/a
n/a
67
77
n/a
73
75
n/a
75
n/a
73
71
n/a
n/a
68
78
76
76
76
76
75
75
74
72
72
72
68
50-64
Small Rural
65+
Women
Large Rural
35-49
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
Interface
Metropolitan
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community consultation and engagement importance
52
2020 consultation and engagement importance (%)
29293029
322928
2727
2525
3331
3427
3120
3236
30
42414041
4142
414343
4342
3844
4041
4339
4141
45
23242424
2224
252525
2426
242121
2520
3122
1819
444433444
65
433
53
733
3
1111
111111
111111111
1
11112111112111111112
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23
Community consultation and engagement performance
53
2020 consultation and engagement performance (index scores)
58
58
56
56
56
54
56
55
55
55
54
52
57
58
56
55
55
54
54
55
54
56
55
51
57
58
56
55
55
52
55
53
53
53
54
52
58
57
56
55
54
52
55
54
53
55
52
51
58
59
57
56
56
54
56
54
54
57
53
53
n/a
60
58
58
57
n/a
n/a
56
56
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
60
58
58
57
n/a
n/a
56
56
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
60
58
58
57
n/a
n/a
55
56
n/a
n/a
54
58
57
56
55
55
54
54
54
54
53
51
51
Metropolitan
18-34
Women
65+
Overall
Large Rural
Small Rural
35-49
Men
Interface
Regional Centres
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community consultation and engagement performance
54
2020 consultation and engagement performance (%)
8987878889
7889898879
3030
30292931
32323331
2727
3030
293033
3025
29
3231
323232
32323433
323132
3331
3132
3430
3330
1515
151515
14131313
121718
1516
1614
1216
1914
767
67
6555
56
978
86
589
7
899
10109998
1211
776
89877
10
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
55
2020 lobbying importance (index scores)
70
70
70
70
68
67
67
66
66
65
65
64
70
71
69
70
69
68
68
68
68
66
66
65
70
72
70
72
70
69
69
68
67
66
67
66
71
73
71
69
71
70
69
68
70
69
68
66
72
72
71
68
70
70
69
68
68
68
67
66
n/a
73
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
67
n/a
67
n/a
73
71
n/a
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
68
n/a
66
n/a
73
72
n/a
72
n/a
70
68
n/a
68
n/a
67
73
71
70
70
69
69
68
68
67
66
66
65
Small Rural
Women
50-64
Regional Centres
35-49
Large Rural
Overall
65+
Interface
18-34
Metropolitan
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
56
2020 lobbying importance (%)
232123232423232323
2021
2624
2820
2620
2527
21
3838
37393839404041
3839
3737
4237
3935
3838
40
272827
272728
272727
2729
2628
2128
2631
2622
25
8887666
66
1077
65
105
97
77
2222
22121
3322
23222
33
2222322222332323212
4
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
57
2020 lobbying performance (index scores)
57
57
56
55
54
54
52
55
54
52
54
51
56
57
55
54
54
53
52
53
54
52
54
50
56
57
55
55
54
53
51
55
54
52
54
51
56
57
54
54
53
53
50
54
52
51
55
50
58
58
57
56
55
55
53
56
55
53
56
53
n/a
59
57
57
56
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
53
n/a
59
57
56
55
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
52
n/a
60
57
56
55
55
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
52
57
57
54
54
53
53
53
52
52
51
51
49
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Men
Large Rural
Small Rural
Regional Centres
35-49
Interface
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
58
2020 lobbying performance (%)
66555666665666666557
2425
242423
26272627
2522
2424252424
3023
2023
3231
323131
32323333
3030
3535
313233
3333
3330
131313
1313
12111212
915
1314
151313
1114
1612
655
55
4444
47
76
77
54
78
5
192020
222220191817
2721
151617
1820
1617
1922
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62
Decisions made in the interest of the community importance
59
2020 community decisions made importance (index scores)
81
81
82
81
82
80
80
80
79
78
78
78
77
80
81
81
81
78
80
80
79
79
78
79
78
81
81
81
82
79
79
80
79
79
78
78
n/a
80
80
82
82
79
80
80
79
79
77
79
82
80
82
81
80
78
80
80
79
80
77
78
n/a
80
81
81
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
79
n/a
77
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
79
79
79
78
77
Small Rural
35-49
50-64
Women
Regional Centres
Interface
Overall
Large Rural
65+
Metropolitan
Men
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Decisions made in the interest of the community importance
60
2020 community decisions made importance (%)
39
39
39
39
39
38
37
36
41
42
38
43
36
41
35
44
43
35
41
42
42
42
42
42
43
42
41
39
41
43
41
42
42
37
40
45
15
15
15
15
14
15
16
16
14
15
15
12
17
13
19
14
12
13
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 18
Decisions made in the interest of the community performance
61
2020 community decisions made performance (index scores)
60
58
55
55
55
55
54
55
52
52
52
51
58
57
54
54
54
52
53
56
52
52
52
50
58
58
55
55
54
55
53
55
51
52
52
51
59
58
54
55
54
53
53
56
50
52
51
50
59
59
55
56
55
56
54
58
52
53
52
52
n/a
60
58
57
57
n/a
56
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
57
54
54
53
53
52
52
52
51
50
49
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Interface
Large Rural
35-49
Regional Centres
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Decisions made in the interest of the community performance
62
2020 community decisions made performance (%)
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
8
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
6
5
8
29
30
30
29
29
31
33
33
30
26
27
29
29
29
34
29
24
28
33
33
34
34
33
33
34
31
31
34
35
33
32
34
34
32
34
33
14
14
14
14
14
14
12
10
15
17
16
15
15
14
11
15
18
14
8
7
7
7
8
6
5
5
8
11
8
9
9
7
6
10
10
7
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
14
11
6
7
7
8
9
8
8
8
10
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 62
The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance
63
2020 sealed local roads importance (index scores)
82
81
80
80
81
80
79
79
79
77
77
77
84
82
82
80
81
80
80
81
80
78
78
77
81
80
79
77
80
79
79
80
78
77
77
75
n/a
79
79
80
79
78
79
76
78
76
76
76
78
78
77
78
78
77
78
77
76
75
75
73
n/a
79
n/a
n/a
79
79
78
n/a
77
75
n/a
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
83
82
81
81
81
80
80
79
79
78
77
77
Small Rural
50-64
Interface
Large Rural
Women
35-49
65+
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
Metropolitan
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance
64
2020 sealed local roads importance (%)
38
37
38
35
34
32
33
33
41
40
42
49
35
41
36
40
44
36
43
45
44
44
46
44
45
46
41
40
41
38
44
42
39
42
42
48
16
16
15
18
16
20
18
18
14
18
15
10
17
15
20
16
12
14
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 19
The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance
65
2020 sealed local roads performance (index scores)
69
58
57
57
60
56
56
56
54
53
53
47
68
55
55
54
57
53
53
53
52
49
50
45
66
54
56
53
59
54
53
53
52
50
51
43
67
56
58
54
60
54
54
54
52
52
51
44
69
57
57
55
60
55
55
55
53
52
52
45
n/a
56
59
n/a
n/a
55
55
55
54
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
56
56
55
55
54
54
54
53
51
50
47
Metropolitan
65+
18-34
Regional Centres
Interface
Women
Overall
Men
35-49
Small Rural
50-64
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance
66
2020 sealed local roads performance (%)
11
13
11
11
11
11
12
21
12
12
7
8
12
11
13
11
9
12
32
33
31
32
33
33
33
42
34
33
25
30
32
32
34
32
28
33
28
28
28
28
28
29
27
23
28
27
30
31
28
29
26
26
30
31
16
16
17
16
16
16
17
9
15
16
20
17
15
16
15
16
18
14
11
10
12
12
11
10
10
4
11
10
17
13
12
11
11
13
14
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 62
Informing the community importance
67
2020 informing community importance (index scores)
77
79
78
76
75
75
75
74
74
71
74
73
76
77
77
75
75
76
75
75
77
72
73
73
76
77
77
76
74
76
74
74
74
71
72
73
77
76
79
78
77
76
76
75
77
72
75
74
77
76
78
76
76
75
75
75
74
72
73
73
76
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
75
75
75
n/a
71
73
n/a
77
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
75
75
75
n/a
71
73
n/a
78
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
75
75
75
n/a
72
74
n/a
78
77
77
77
77
76
75
75
74
73
72
72
50-64
Regional Centres
Women
Small Rural
Large Rural
65+
Overall
35-49
Interface
Men
18-34
Metropolitan
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Informing the community importance
68
2020 informing community importance (%)
323232
3033
30303031
2632
363535
2835
2832
3730
424141
4342
44434444
4340
414243
4143
3941
4048
2222222320222222
2124
23192018
2419
2721
1918
4444
4333
453
23
35
25432
1111
1111
1121
11
111
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
Informing the community performance
69
2020 informing community performance (index scores)
62
60
60
61
61
60
60
59
58
59
57
56
61
60
60
61
59
59
58
58
56
60
56
59
61
61
60
60
60
59
59
58
58
55
57
58
63
59
60
61
56
59
59
58
58
55
56
59
64
61
62
62
59
61
61
60
60
56
58
58
n/a
65
63
63
n/a
62
62
62
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
63
62
63
n/a
61
60
61
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
62
61
63
n/a
60
58
59
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
62
60
59
59
59
59
58
58
58
57
56
56
Metropolitan
65+
Women
18-34
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Men
Small Rural
Interface
50-64
Regional Centres
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Informing the community performance
70
2020 informing community performance (%)
1213
1111121213121214
9101211111211119
14
3535
363535
3840
3838
373532
353535
353636
3335
3231313231
3130
323130
3134
3232
323233
3134
31
13141313
13121111
1312
1615
141314
1312
1416
12
5555
54
434
45756655665
33334233234233333334
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance
71
2020 streets and footpaths importance (index scores)
79
79
78
78
79
78
77
77
77
77
75
75
79
79
78
78
80
79
79
78
77
76
76
75
78
79
78
78
80
78
77
77
75
76
75
74
78
80
77
78
79
78
77
77
77
75
74
76
78
79
78
78
78
77
77
77
77
76
75
75
78
79
77
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
74
74
79
81
78
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
78
n/a
n/a
75
75
79
79
78
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
74
74
81
80
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
77
76
74
50-64
Women
65+
35-49
Interface
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Overall
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance
72
2020 streets and footpaths importance (%)
3634353434343335
3234
393737
3532
4131
3942
36
424443
42434344
4446
4541
3939
4243
4040
3940
47
191818
191819181818
1816
201918
2116
2519
1514
2232
22322
232233
24121
11
111111
11111
11
1
111121111
111111
111
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 23
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance
73
2020 streets and footpaths performance (index scores)
65
62
61
60
59
59
57
58
58
57
60
55
64
62
59
59
58
58
57
58
58
56
59
54
62
60
57
57
56
57
57
57
56
54
56
53
63
60
58
58
57
57
58
57
56
55
57
53
64
62
58
59
58
58
59
57
57
55
56
54
n/a
62
n/a
59
57
58
n/a
57
56
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
n/a
59
57
58
n/a
57
56
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
58
56
57
n/a
57
56
54
n/a
n/a
64
60
59
59
58
58
57
57
57
55
54
54
Metropolitan
18-34
Regional Centres
Men
35-49
Overall
Small Rural
65+
Women
50-64
Interface
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance
74
2020 streets and footpaths performance (%)
131414131213131413
1811
1410121413
1613
1113
343534
3334343433
3438
3336
3033
3533
3637
3032
282828
2828282828
2827
2828
2927
2728
2626
3029
151414
1514151515
1511
1614
1815
1416
1315
1715
877
987789
510
710
88
87
898
322233211111
44231234
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 35
Traffic management importance
75
2020 traffic management importance (index scores)
83
76
74
74
75
73
73
73
72
71
64
84
77
74
73
76
74
74
74
73
71
67
67
75
74
72
76
72
72
71
71
69
67
71
75
73
72
75
72
72
72
70
69
70
68
73
73
72
74
71
71
72
68
68
68
n/a
73
73
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
69
67
n/a
n/a
75
74
74
n/a
72
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
n/a
76
75
74
n/a
73
73
n/a
72
70
n/a
80
76
75
74
73
73
72
72
71
70
67
Interface
Women
65+
50-64
Metropolitan
Overall
35-49
Regional Centres
18-34
Men
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Traffic management importance
76
2020 traffic management importance (%)
29
30
31
27
27
25
23
26
29
28
45
28
19
25
33
28
29
31
29
41
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
36
38
40
40
42
38
38
41
46
23
23
22
24
24
26
27
25
23
23
14
27
28
26
20
26
24
22
19
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
5
9
6
4
6
7
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
Traffic management performance
77
2020 traffic management performance (index scores)
66
59
59
59
58
57
58
58
56
60
56
52
65
60
58
57
57
56
57
58
55
56
55
51
67
62
61
60
56
58
59
60
57
61
58
59
65
62
61
60
56
57
59
60
57
59
57
57
67
59
62
60
57
59
60
60
57
62
58
61
n/a
n/a
63
60
n/a
60
60
61
58
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
61
n/a
59
60
60
57
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
60
n/a
58
58
59
56
n/a
55
n/a
64
62
60
59
59
58
58
58
57
56
55
52
Small Rural
Large Rural
18-34
65+
Metropolitan
Men
Overall
Women
50-64
Regional Centres
35-49
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Traffic management performance
78
2020 traffic management performance (%)
109101010101010910811111010912
8910
383736
38384040
393838
3234
4447
3838
403736
37
3031
3030
303130
313131
3031
2828
2931
2831
3131
1313
1513
131212131312
1815
97
1313
131314
12
7675
655556
11843
76
69
75
333343333322
443312
44
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15
Parking facilities importance
79
2020 parking importance (index scores)
73
75
74
72
73
71
70
66
68
69
66
74
75
74
72
73
71
70
64
69
69
66
73
72
73
71
73
70
69
64
66
67
66
73
73
74
70
72
70
69
65
66
68
68
74
74
74
71
72
70
70
67
67
67
67
74
n/a
74
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
67
68
n/a
74
n/a
75
73
n/a
71
70
n/a
67
68
n/a
74
n/a
74
72
n/a
71
70
n/a
68
68
n/a
75
75
74
72
71
71
69
69
68
67
66
65+
Regional Centres
Women
50-64
Metropolitan
Overall
35-49
Small Rural
Men
18-34
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Parking facilities importance
80
2020 parking importance (%)
27
26
27
25
24
24
24
25
24
25
33
22
22
22
31
22
25
30
31
39
40
39
39
41
41
40
42
42
41
38
35
40
39
39
36
36
39
44
26
26
27
28
27
27
28
26
27
27
22
31
27
29
23
32
31
24
19
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
10
7
7
5
8
7
6
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17
Parking facilities performance
81
2020 parking performance (index scores)
60
57
57
58
56
55
56
56
54
55
55
50
60
57
58
59
56
55
56
56
56
55
54
51
63
57
56
60
56
53
56
55
54
55
54
52
61
56
57
58
56
54
57
56
55
56
55
54
62
60
59
59
58
55
58
57
55
56
55
53
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
55
57
56
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
58
n/a
57
57
55
56
56
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
57
n/a
55
56
55
56
55
n/a
60
58
57
57
56
56
56
55
54
54
54
49
Small Rural
Interface
18-34
Large Rural
Men
Metropolitan
35-49
Overall
50-64
Women
65+
Regional Centres
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Parking facilities performance
82
2020 parking performance (%)
99910991099910991110811989
33343533343635
3635
3334
2536
3834
3234
363230
323231
323232323333
3334
3131
3030
3331
3034
32
161615161415151415
1515
2015
1315
1615
1616
17
8788
766
66
74
126578788
9
2222332323223322222
4
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
Enforcement of local laws importance
83
2020 law enforcement importance (index scores)
73
75
72
70
73
71
69
71
69
68
66
68
74
74
72
71
73
71
71
70
69
68
67
66
73
74
73
71
72
71
71
70
70
68
68
67
73
74
71
70
71
70
71
70
70
69
66
69
71
74
72
72
72
71
71
70
70
70
67
68
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
70
71
70
68
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
75
73
n/a
n/a
71
71
72
70
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
74
71
n/a
n/a
70
70
71
68
n/a
66
n/a
73
73
73
71
71
70
70
69
68
68
66
66
Interface
Women
65+
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Overall
50-64
18-34
35-49
Large Rural
Men
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Enforcement of local laws importance
84
2020 law enforcement importance (%)
26272727262524
272426
3330
232222
3126262626
38383738
3841
4040
4141
3636
373537
3935
3436
44
2626272627
2728
262725
2225
3029
2824
2729
2722
76666
5666
667
799
59974
222221111212
2431232
2
11111111111
11111
12
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
Enforcement of local laws performance
85
2020 law enforcement performance (index scores)
67
64
66
65
64
64
64
62
63
63
61
62
67
64
66
65
64
64
64
62
62
63
61
61
67
64
66
65
63
64
64
63
63
65
61
60
67
64
64
65
63
63
63
62
62
64
61
61
70
66
67
67
65
66
65
64
64
66
63
65
69
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
66
66
64
65
n/a
63
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
65
65
64
64
n/a
62
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
65
64
64
64
n/a
63
n/a
66
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
62
62
60
59
18-34
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Women
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
65+
Men
Small Rural
50-64
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Enforcement of local laws performance
86
2020 law enforcement performance (%)
12121212121314131313
9131211111214
121011
383839
3937
4041
4040
3835
3938
383838
4439
3434
272625
2626
2625
2526
2629
2826262727
2625
2928
888
88
67
77
611
78897
68
108
433
34
33
33
35
4344
33
55
4
121212131412111211
1410
8131211
138
1114
16
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34
Family support services importance
87
2020 family support importance (index scores)
78
76
76
75
74
74
75
71
72
73
72
69
78
76
76
75
74
74
75
69
72
72
72
69
77
74
76
76
73
73
73
71
71
72
72
69
77
75
75
73
73
74
73
72
71
72
70
68
77
74
74
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
68
77
n/a
74
n/a
72
73
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
71
68
78
n/a
75
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
68
78
n/a
75
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
72
69
79
77
76
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
71
Women
Interface
18-34
Regional Centres
Overall
35-49
Metropolitan
Small Rural
65+
Large Rural
50-64
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Family support services importance
88
2020 family support importance (%)
312930
282828
26272729
3534
2928
2536
333231
26
4242
40414142
424444
4341
3942
4541
4343
4039
45
2021
2322
222324
222221
1821
2218
2516
1922
2220
445
55
54444
344
35
244
43
1112
2111111
1122
11
21
2222322222122222112
4
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
Family support services performance
89
2020 family support performance (index scores)
70
69
67
67
68
67
68
67
67
65
67
64
68
68
67
66
67
66
66
67
67
65
67
63
70
68
67
67
68
66
67
66
67
65
65
64
69
69
67
66
66
66
66
66
66
64
65
62
70
68
68
67
67
67
66
66
67
67
66
65
72
n/a
69
68
n/a
68
n/a
67
69
n/a
n/a
66
71
n/a
68
67
n/a
67
n/a
66
68
n/a
n/a
64
70
n/a
67
67
n/a
66
n/a
65
68
n/a
n/a
64
69
69
66
66
66
65
65
65
65
64
63
63
65+
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
18-34
Large Rural
Interface
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Family support services performance
90
2020 family support performance (%)
11111111101112111112
913
91191212
107
12
3032
313031
3433
3334
2929
3431
2932
2933
3427
28
2120
212021
21202122
1822
2423
182121
2420
2317
54
444
444
54
67
55
55
66
53
21
21
2111
21
22
22
22
22
21
313132
3432
292929
2635
3120
3134
3231
2428
3538
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
Elderly support services importance
91
2020 elderly support importance (index scores)
84
82
80
80
81
81
79
80
79
79
78
76
83
81
80
80
81
80
78
79
79
79
77
75
82
80
79
79
78
80
78
78
77
77
76
74
82
79
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
78
77
75
82
80
80
80
77
80
78
79
78
78
77
75
83
80
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
78
77
75
83
81
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
79
77
75
83
81
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
80
78
76
83
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
78
78
78
76
Women
50-64
65+
Small Rural
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Overall
Metropolitan
35-49
18-34
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Elderly support services importance
92
2020 elderly support importance (%)
393838
353636
353637
354142
3943
3246
3537
4440
4244
434444
444645
4645
4040
4241
4342
4340
4144
1515
161716
161615
1416
15151413
1910
1818
1112
22
22
222
22
22
2223
12
321
1
11
1
1
1
1111
111
1
1111211111111111
112
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
Elderly support services performance
93
2020 elderly support performance (index scores)
72
71
68
68
69
67
67
67
66
67
66
67
70
69
68
68
67
67
67
67
65
67
67
66
72
71
68
68
68
67
67
67
66
66
64
68
71
70
69
68
67
69
66
67
66
65
59
66
74
72
69
69
69
69
69
67
67
66
65
66
74
n/a
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
69
69
68
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
70
69
69
n/a
n/a
69
67
67
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
69
69
68
n/a
n/a
68
67
66
n/a
n/a
72
71
68
68
68
67
67
66
66
65
65
63
65+
Small Rural
Women
Overall
Men
Metropolitan
Large Rural
18-34
50-64
35-49
Interface
Regional Centres
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Elderly support services performance
94
2020 elderly support performance (%)
151414141415161515
12121415
2014
1712
1013
23
30333231
303434
3334
2730
3130
3431
2931
2830
32
2019
1919
201917
1920
1823
2521
181920
2019
2118
55
545
444
54
59
65
56
55
65
22
222
221
22
33
22
22
22
22
282829
3030
262728
2538
2817
2821
2927
3036
2819
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30
Disadvantaged support services importance
95
2020 disadvantaged support importance (index scores)
78
77
n/a
76
73
74
74
75
74
71
70
76
72
n/a
73
73
72
72
74
72
70
69
75
72
75
72
72
71
71
71
70
70
67
76
73
73
75
72
71
73
73
73
72
69
77
72
74
74
73
73
73
74
73
72
69
77
n/a
n/a
74
72
72
72
n/a
72
n/a
68
78
n/a
n/a
75
73
73
73
n/a
72
n/a
69
77
n/a
n/a
75
73
73
73
n/a
72
n/a
69
77
77
76
75
74
74
74
74
73
72
71
Women
Interface
Regional Centres
18-34
65+
50-64
Overall
Metropolitan
35-49
Large Rural
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Disadvantaged support services importance
96
2020 disadvantaged support importance (%)
2930
27262728
25272728
3534
2824
3431
283029
64
4241
4141
4242
444343
443941
4143
4241
4343
4334
2122
242422
2323232321
2018
2323
1823
231819
444
55
4444424
45
334
54
1112111111
1122111
21
222232222232222112
42
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralMen
Women18-3435-4950-64
65+Personal user*
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9
Disadvantaged support services performance
97
2020 disadvantaged support performance (index scores)
65
63
63
61
61
62
61
60
60
63
60
64
63
61
61
62
61
61
62
60
61
58
64
62
62
61
61
61
60
56
61
63
59
64
61
62
61
60
61
59
58
60
59
59
65
62
63
62
62
62
61
61
62
61
60
67
65
n/a
n/a
65
64
62
n/a
63
n/a
61
64
64
n/a
n/a
65
62
61
n/a
61
n/a
60
66
63
n/a
n/a
66
63
60
n/a
63
n/a
59
62
62
62
61
61
60
59
59
59
59
58
65+
Men
Metropolitan
Large Rural
18-34
Overall
35-49
Interface
Women
Regional Centres
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Disadvantaged support services performance
98
2020 disadvantaged support performance (%)
7
7
6
6
6
7
8
7
8
7
7
8
6
7
7
7
5
6
8
25
25
25
25
24
28
28
27
28
23
25
30
24
27
23
29
24
22
24
23
23
23
22
23
23
22
22
23
22
23
26
23
23
24
27
21
23
22
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
5
6
10
7
6
8
6
7
8
6
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
36
37
38
39
39
35
35
36
34
41
35
23
37
36
35
28
41
38
37
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15
Recreational facilities importance
99
2020 recreational facilities importance (index scores)
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
71
70
70
75
74
75
74
72
74
73
74
73
72
72
72
74
73
74
72
71
72
72
73
73
71
70
71
75
73
75
73
72
72
73
73
73
71
71
72
75
72
73
72
73
72
72
72
72
71
71
70
74
72
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
75
73
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
75
72
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
75
74
74
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
71
69
35-49
50-64
Women
Interface
Small Rural
Large Rural
Overall
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
65+
Men
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Recreational facilities importance
100
2020 recreational facilities importance (%)
242325
2425
232323
2223
26252426
2226
2030
2722
4546
464645
464747494744
434644
4546
4343
4649
2626
25262426
2626252627
272625
2724
3123
2325
4434
43
43
33344
44353
33
1111
11
11
1
11
11
11
1
1
11
1
1
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
Recreational facilities performance
101
2020 recreational facilities performance (index scores)
75
74
71
71
70
70
70
68
69
68
70
68
74
72
70
70
69
69
69
68
68
69
68
66
73
73
70
69
70
69
68
68
69
69
66
66
73
72
69
70
69
69
69
67
67
68
67
65
74
73
70
69
70
69
69
67
69
70
68
66
n/a
74
71
n/a
71
70
71
69
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
70
n/a
70
70
70
68
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
70
n/a
70
69
70
67
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
73
70
70
70
70
69
68
68
68
67
67
Metropolitan
65+
Women
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
18-34
35-49
50-64
Small Rural
Interface
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Recreational facilities performance
102
2020 recreational facilities performance (%)
23232222
212223
2221
2819
2320222323
2123
2126
4244
4243
4343
444444
4443
444140
4341
4442
4341
2221
2222
232321
2222
1925
222324
222224
2224
20
66
77
76677
376
97
67
787
4
32323
22221333
332
343
2
4444433334333434223
6
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39
The appearance of public areas importance
103
2020 public areas importance (index scores)
75
75
73
74
74
74
73
73
74
73
71
71
75
76
76
75
75
74
74
74
74
73
72
71
75
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
75
73
72
72
75
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
72
72
75
75
73
75
74
73
74
73
73
73
71
70
75
75
n/a
75
74
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
70
76
76
n/a
75
75
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
n/a
72
71
74
75
n/a
74
74
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
71
76
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
73
73
72
71
50-64
Women
Interface
35-49
65+
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Overall
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Men
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The appearance of public areas importance
104
2020 public areas importance (%)
2524
262626
242526
2324
3027
2526
2229
222829
24
4747
464748
4748
484948
4345
4648
4647
4344
4851
2525
242423252523
252424252524
2822
3025
2122
2322
22222
2333232
422
2
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27
The appearance of public areas performance
105
2020 public areas performance (index scores)
74
73
73
74
72
73
72
73
72
70
71
69
73
72
72
73
71
72
71
71
71
69
70
68
72
74
72
73
72
72
71
72
71
69
69
66
72
73
72
73
71
71
71
72
71
69
69
66
73
74
72
72
72
72
72
73
71
69
70
67
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
72
72
72
73
72
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
70
71
71
72
71
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
70
72
71
73
71
n/a
70
n/a
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
71
71
70
65
Metropolitan
Small Rural
65+
Regional Centres
35-49
Women
Overall
18-34
Men
Large Rural
50-64
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
The appearance of public areas performance
106
2020 public areas performance (%)
2626
2425242425
2423
2716
2724
2725262526
2327
4545
4546
464746
4648
4643
4446
4546434546
4644
2120
212021
2020
2221
2028
20221920
212119
2221
6566655665
876
6666
675
2222222222
42
2322232
2
11111111111
1111
1
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38
Art centres and libraries importance
107
2020 art centres and libraries importance (index scores)
69
66
67
65
65
65
64
64
63
64
61
63
69
67
67
65
65
65
62
67
63
62
61
61
69
66
67
66
64
64
63
62
62
61
60
61
70
67
68
66
65
66
63
66
64
64
60
65
70
67
69
67
65
65
63
64
66
63
61
62
70
68
n/a
66
66
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
62
n/a
70
69
n/a
67
67
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
62
n/a
71
68
n/a
67
67
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
62
n/a
69
68
68
66
66
65
64
64
63
62
61
60
Women
65+
Metropolitan
35-49
50-64
Overall
Large Rural
Interface
Regional Centres
18-34
Men
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Art centres and libraries importance
108
2020 art centres and libraries importance (%)
17171615
181617161719
161618
1314
2015
191717
3939
3939
4040404242
4339
3735
3535
4333
3940
45
32333434
303333
3333
2934
3336
3635
2936
3233
28
9999
988
7779
118
1212
512
886
22223211
222
22
43132
22
1111111
11
11111
11
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
Art centres and libraries performance
109
2020 art centres and libraries performance (index scores)
77
76
76
74
74
74
74
73
73
73
75
73
76
75
75
76
74
73
74
73
72
71
75
73
76
75
75
75
73
72
73
72
72
70
72
72
75
74
74
75
72
71
72
70
71
70
68
71
76
75
75
75
73
69
73
72
71
73
72
73
78
n/a
77
n/a
76
n/a
75
74
73
n/a
n/a
74
76
n/a
74
n/a
73
n/a
73
72
72
n/a
n/a
73
76
n/a
74
n/a
72
n/a
73
71
71
n/a
n/a
73
77
75
75
74
74
74
74
73
72
72
71
71
65+
Metropolitan
Women
Regional Centres
35-49
Small Rural
Overall
Men
50-64
Large Rural
Interface
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Art centres and libraries performance
110
2020 art centres and libraries performance (%)
242625
232324
272524
2720
262223
2127
1926
2128
4342
4243
4244
4444
4442
4445
4143
4243
4342
4342
19171818
1818
17181919
2119
1818
2018
2318
2015
3444
54
345
34
35
23
343
33
11112
1122
12
1211
111
11
10101010109887
1097
131313
899
1111
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26
Community and cultural activities importance
111
2020 community and cultural activities importance (index scores)
64
62
62
61
61
61
61
61
60
61
62
58
64
62
61
59
60
63
61
61
61
60
60
57
65
62
57
60
63
61
61
61
61
61
62
57
66
62
63
61
62
64
62
61
62
61
64
58
66
63
59
61
62
63
62
61
62
61
65
58
65
n/a
n/a
61
62
62
62
61
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
65
n/a
n/a
62
61
62
62
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
65
n/a
n/a
61
60
63
62
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
65
63
62
62
62
62
62
62
61
61
60
58
Women
Regional Centres
Interface
50-64
35-49
18-34
Overall
65+
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community and cultural activities importance
112
2020 community and cultural activities importance (%)
131212121211111111121315
1314
111514
1314
11
3635343537
373737373736
363432
3240
343635
38
38404039
384041
41393738
383939
3936
3740
3737
1010101110109
9101110
9109
147
1210
109
222222122222343122
32
11111
1111111111
12
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
Community and cultural activities performance
113
2020 community and cultural activities performance (index scores)
71
70
70
69
69
69
66
68
67
67
68
67
69
70
70
69
68
69
69
67
67
67
67
68
70
70
71
70
69
69
69
68
69
67
64
67
69
71
70
70
69
69
65
67
67
67
63
68
71
71
71
70
69
69
68
68
69
68
65
69
72
n/a
71
71
n/a
70
n/a
69
n/a
68
n/a
69
71
n/a
70
69
n/a
69
n/a
68
n/a
68
n/a
68
71
n/a
70
68
n/a
68
n/a
67
n/a
67
n/a
68
70
70
70
70
69
68
68
67
67
67
66
66
65+
Metropolitan
Women
35-49
Regional Centres
Overall
Small Rural
50-64
Large Rural
Men
Interface
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Community and cultural activities performance
114
2020 community and cultural activities performance (%)
1717171717181817
1518
14171718
1519
1419
1519
4242424241
4344
4444
4243
4341
4241
4243
4341
41
2625252525
252425
2625
2726
2527
2724
2724
2824
56555
555
54
65
85
65
75
54
21212
111
112
12
32
122
21
999
1097889
109886
9877
912
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26
Waste management importance
115
2020 waste management importance (index scores)
83
83
82
82
82
82
81
80
80
80
79
79
83
83
82
84
82
82
81
81
81
79
80
78
81
81
80
79
80
79
79
79
78
78
77
76
82
82
80
81
81
80
80
79
79
79
78
79
81
80
80
79
81
79
79
80
78
76
77
77
n/a
80
79
n/a
80
80
79
n/a
n/a
77
77
n/a
n/a
81
80
n/a
81
80
79
n/a
n/a
76
77
n/a
n/a
80
79
n/a
79
79
78
n/a
n/a
76
77
n/a
84
84
83
83
83
82
82
82
81
81
80
79
Metropolitan
Women
35-49
Interface
50-64
65+
Overall
Regional Centres
Large Rural
18-34
Men
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Waste management importance
116
2020 waste management importance (%)
444142
3638
353536
324847
4442
3940
4941
4846
43
424443
4645
4647
4749
4241
4342
4344
4143
3941
45
111313
1614
1616
1516
91112
121414
914
111110
1111
21
11
1111
122
1111
1
1
111
1
1
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
Waste management performance
117
2020 waste management performance (index scores)
72
73
69
68
68
70
68
66
68
66
66
64
73
75
70
70
70
68
70
69
70
68
69
67
74
75
71
69
71
71
71
70
71
69
70
68
74
76
70
69
70
71
70
69
70
67
68
66
75
77
72
71
72
73
72
71
73
70
69
68
75
n/a
73
n/a
73
n/a
72
n/a
74
71
71
n/a
74
n/a
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
n/a
73
69
69
n/a
75
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
72
n/a
73
70
69
n/a
70
70
66
66
65
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
65+
Metropolitan
Men
Regional Centres
Overall
Interface
Women
Small Rural
18-34
50-64
35-49
Large Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Waste management performance
118
2020 waste management performance (%)
20232425
242526
242425
1820
1818
2119
171818
25
4042
4544
4547
474748
424341
3740
4238413939
41
2321
1818
1817
1618
1721
2323
2323
212424
2324
21
108
767
6566
89
1012
109
1110
1212
7
543
343332255
76
555763
322322222211
34233223
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41
Business and community development and tourism importance
119
2020 business/development/tourism importance (index scores)
71
73
67
67
66
64
66
65
63
64
57
71
74
68
68
67
65
66
66
65
65
59
72
74
67
69
69
67
68
67
65
66
60
71
73
67
70
68
69
67
67
64
67
60
70
73
69
69
68
70
67
67
65
65
59
n/a
n/a
68
70
68
n/a
67
67
65
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
69
68
n/a
67
67
65
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
68
66
n/a
66
66
63
64
n/a
74
73
69
69
68
68
68
67
66
65
58
Small Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
Women
35-49
Large Rural
65+
Overall
Men
18-34
Metropolitan
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development and tourism importance
120
2020 business/development/tourism importance (%)
21
19
21
21
21
21
20
20
18
10
28
19
30
19
23
19
23
24
20
38
36
36
38
38
38
38
39
39
32
42
41
41
38
39
36
37
39
41
30
32
31
30
30
31
31
31
31
38
26
31
23
30
29
33
30
27
28
8
9
9
8
8
7
8
8
9
16
3
6
4
9
7
10
8
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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
Business and community development and tourism performance
121
2020 business/development/tourism performance (index scores)
66
62
62
62
62
61
61
60
59
59
59
58
65
62
62
61
62
59
60
60
59
59
59
58
66
64
63
60
63
61
61
60
60
64
60
58
n/a
62
63
59
62
62
60
62
59
61
59
59
63
63
64
59
63
63
61
62
59
63
60
59
n/a
63
64
n/a
63
n/a
62
n/a
60
n/a
60
59
n/a
63
64
n/a
63
n/a
62
n/a
61
n/a
60
59
n/a
63
64
n/a
63
n/a
62
n/a
60
n/a
60
59
63
61
61
61
61
60
59
59
58
58
58
57
Interface
65+
18-34
Large Rural
Women
Regional Centres
Overall
Metropolitan
Men
Small Rural
35-49
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development and tourism performance
122
2020 business/development/tourism performance (%)
101010111011111010
610121111910109911
323333
3432
3435
3535
2940
3434
3131
3338
3228
31
32313129
313130
3031
3328
3132
3233
3032
3234
30
111010
1010
109
99
9811
1013
1110
1012
139
434
33
33
33
22
445
43
35
43
121312
141412121312
2211
798
1113
710
1216
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
Council’s general town planning policy importance
123
2020 town planning importance (index scores)
76
76
73
72
75
73
71
73
71
73
67
76
76
74
73
74
73
72
74
72
71
67
76
76
74
73
74
72
71
73
71
70
64
76
74
74
72
75
73
72
73
71
72
68
76
74
74
72
74
72
73
73
70
72
66
76
74
73
n/a
74
72
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
66
77
75
73
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
66
76
74
73
n/a
74
72
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
66
76
76
74
73
73
72
72
71
71
70
65
50-64
65+
35-49
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Interface
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Council’s general town planning policy importance
124
2020 town planning importance (%)
26
26
27
26
27
25
25
25
25
28
22
26
26
26
27
18
29
33
29
39
40
40
41
40
41
41
42
42
40
40
39
37
39
39
31
42
40
44
26
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
24
24
28
26
27
26
25
40
22
20
17
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
6
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
6
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
Council’s general town planning policy performance
125
2020 town planning performance (index scores)
61
56
54
55
55
55
55
57
53
53
48
50
59
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
55
51
53
50
57
53
54
54
53
53
53
56
51
51
51
49
57
54
52
51
51
52
53
54
52
50
49
48
59
55
54
53
54
54
55
55
55
53
53
51
60
n/a
55
n/a
54
55
56
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
51
60
n/a
55
n/a
54
55
55
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
50
59
n/a
54
n/a
53
54
54
n/a
n/a
52
n/a
50
57
55
55
54
54
54
53
52
52
51
50
49
18-34
Metropolitan
65+
Large Rural
Men
Overall
Women
Regional Centres
Interface
35-49
Small Rural
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Council’s general town planning policy performance
126
2020 town planning performance (%)
6655556556566
465
8446
2730
272625
2828292928
262627
2528
2530
2723
26
3029
313030
31313232
2930
3330
3029
3029
3030
31
1412
131414
12121214
1214
1513
1714
1311
1417
13
67
777
665
667
768
76
5985
181718191917171715
1919
14171615
2118171718
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
Planning and building permits importance
127
2020 planning and building permits importance (index scores)
75
74
75
73
71
72
71
71
71
70
70
66
75
74
74
73
71
71
70
71
71
69
68
64
75
76
74
74
72
72
72
69
69
70
68
66
74
74
74
74
71
71
70
69
69
69
71
67
74
74
73
73
71
72
71
69
70
69
70
66
74
n/a
73
74
71
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
66
74
n/a
74
73
71
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
65
74
n/a
74
73
71
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
66
76
74
74
73
71
71
71
71
70
70
68
65
65+
Metropolitan
50-64
Women
Overall
35-49
Large Rural
Interface
Regional Centres
Men
Small Rural
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning and building permits importance
128
2020 planning and building permits importance (%)
27262627
2626252525
312426
2521
2528
1927
3230
38393938
3939414041
3937
3639
3938
3833
393843
25252525
2527252725
22312726
2726
2536
262217
6665
65
55
555
65
875
964
3
11212
111
11
123
21121
1
3323323232333323212
5
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
Planning and building permits performance
129
2020 planning and building permits performance (index scores)
58
57
53
55
51
52
52
51
50
49
47
48
57
57
51
54
51
52
52
50
50
49
49
51
60
55
49
46
50
51
51
49
51
48
47
51
55
55
50
46
49
50
52
48
50
50
48
50
57
58
53
49
53
54
54
53
53
54
51
53
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
53
53
54
51
53
n/a
50
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
54
55
55
54
54
n/a
50
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
53
54
54
51
53
n/a
49
n/a
57
55
54
51
51
51
51
51
50
49
47
46
Regional Centres
18-34
Metropolitan
Interface
Men
Overall
Women
35-49
65+
Large Rural
50-64
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning and building permits performance
130
2020 planning and building permits performance (%)
665556565657
54657
546
2224
242322
2525
262625
2327
2118
2421
2723
2019
272627
2725
2826
272728
2629
2726
2728
2927
2726
141313
1413
1212
121212
1212
1516
1513
1114
1614
8989
86
7677
94
1012
98
69
118
22222323
2723
25232323
252121
2419
2519
2121
26
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
Environmental sustainability importance
131
2020 environmental sustainability importance (index scores)
79
78
75
74
74
74
73
n/a
74
72
72
70
77
76
74
73
73
73
72
n/a
73
71
70
69
76
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
70
70
68
77
77
74
72
71
73
73
77
73
71
74
69
77
75
74
73
73
73
73
71
72
70
77
69
77
75
n/a
72
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
68
76
74
n/a
71
n/a
72
72
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
68
75
73
n/a
71
n/a
71
71
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
67
78
76
76
75
74
74
74
73
73
72
70
70
Women
18-34
Metropolitan
35-49
Regional Centres
Overall
50-64
Interface
Large Rural
65+
Small Rural
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Environmental sustainability importance
132
2020 environmental sustainability importance (%)
3433
3129302929
2726
36353433
2828
4038
3635
27
3739
3940
4041
4042
4139
3437
3737
3638
3636
3641
2021
23242123
2424
2418
212122
2223
1721
2020
21
55556
55564
455
77
34
56
6
2222212222
42234
12
33
3
1111111111211111
112
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
Environmental sustainability performance
133
2020 environmental sustainability performance (index scores)
64
63
62
63
61
63
62
62
62
59
59
60
64
63
63
64
61
64
63
63
63
61
62
64
64
64
64
65
62
64
64
64
63
62
63
62
64
63
62
63
62
64
63
63
63
61
61
60
65
65
64
63
64
65
63
64
64
62
63
63
n/a
65
64
n/a
n/a
65
64
64
64
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
64
n/a
n/a
66
64
64
64
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
64
n/a
n/a
67
63
64
65
62
n/a
n/a
62
61
61
61
60
60
60
60
59
57
57
56
Metropolitan
65+
Men
Regional Centres
Large Rural
18-34
35-49
Overall
Women
50-64
Small Rural
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Environmental sustainability performance
134
2020 environmental sustainability performance (%)
10111010111011111111
710108109109811
333537373639
394039
3325
3535
3134
323336
3033
3331
3029
3030
292929
3338
3429
3431
343631
3332
1098
78
7677
912
912
12911
1011
139
332
2322223
44
45
43
34
43
111212
14131312121212
138
10101110
89
1213
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31
Emergency and disaster management importance
135
2020 emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)
85
85
81
82
83
81
81
81
81
80
79
77
85
84
80
82
83
82
81
80
81
81
80
77
84
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
78
80
77
76
84
83
82
81
81
80
80
80
80
80
76
76
84
81
80
81
80
81
80
80
79
79
77
75
85
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
n/a
80
80
79
80
n/a
76
85
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
n/a
80
80
79
80
n/a
76
84
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
n/a
80
80
79
79
n/a
76
84
83
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
80
78
77
Women
Interface
Small Rural
Large Rural
18-34
Regional Centres
Overall
50-64
35-49
65+
Metropolitan
Men
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Emergency and disaster management importance
136
2020 emergency and disaster management importance (%)
464748
4545444546
4341
51474747
3952
4848
4741
353533
3436
353434
3835
333535
3636
3335
3033
40
131314
1414
15141414
1611
1312
1216
1012
161313
433434444
524
42
6244
53
111111111
211
112111
22
11111111121
1111
13
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan
InterfaceRegional Centres
Large RuralSmall Rural
MenWomen
18-3435-4950-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16
Emergency and disaster management performance
137
2020 emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)
75
73
72
72
74
72
72
73
71
70
73
70
73
72
72
71
72
71
71
72
70
69
70
69
70
72
72
70
71
70
69
71
69
68
69
68
68
71
71
70
71
69
68
71
68
68
69
67
68
71
70
71
71
70
68
73
69
69
70
67
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
73
71
70
75
70
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
70
70
69
72
69
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
70
70
68
73
69
n/a
n/a
67
70
70
70
69
69
68
68
68
68
66
66
66
Regional Centres
65+
Small Rural
Large Rural
Women
Overall
35-49
18-34
Men
Metropolitan
Interface
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Emergency and disaster management performance
138
2020 emergency and disaster management performance (%)
1720
18171717
201919
1013
211921
16171617
1518
3638
393736
3938
3738
3137
3836
373735
4135
3233
221819
1919
1918
2020
2321
2322
182122
2420
2320
544
44
5455
35
466
55
55
64
222
22
2222
13
323
32
23
32
191918
2121
18181716
3120
121615
1819
121920
23
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23
Planning for population growth in the area importance
139
2020 population growth importance (index scores)
80
79
79
75
78
76
77
77
75
77
74
79
80
78
75
79
77
77
78
76
78
74
80
79
78
75
78
77
76
75
75
78
73
79
77
77
76
77
75
76
75
74
74
74
76
79
78
76
77
75
75
74
73
74
70
n/a
78
78
n/a
77
75
75
n/a
73
n/a
70
n/a
78
77
n/a
77
74
75
n/a
73
n/a
71
n/a
78
77
n/a
77
75
75
n/a
73
n/a
73
80
78
78
77
77
77
76
75
75
75
73
Interface
50-64
35-49
Regional Centres
Women
65+
Overall
Metropolitan
Men
Large Rural
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning for population growth in the area importance
140
2020 population growth importance (%)
37
38
39
36
35
34
33
34
34
36
48
37
34
34
39
30
42
41
36
37
35
36
38
37
38
38
38
39
36
31
40
38
39
36
39
35
37
39
19
19
18
19
20
21
21
20
19
19
13
18
21
19
18
23
18
16
18
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
6
4
4
5
5
4
6
5
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
Planning for population growth in the area performance
141
2020 population growth performance (index scores)
62
57
52
52
52
52
52
49
49
49
48
51
62
56
50
51
52
52
52
51
50
48
49
n/a
62
57
51
52
53
52
52
50
49
48
50
n/a
59
55
51
52
52
51
51
49
48
47
55
n/a
61
60
54
54
54
54
55
51
50
50
57
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
55
54
54
55
52
51
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
55
54
54
54
51
50
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
n/a
52
52
52
52
48
49
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
54
52
52
51
51
51
49
47
47
46
44
Regional Centres
18-34
Metropolitan
65+
Men
Overall
Women
35-49
50-64
Large Rural
Interface
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Planning for population growth in the area performance
142
2020 population growth performance (%)
77876777666
126
4779
667
232524
2423
2828
2625
2219
2820
212322
2624
1821
302930
2930
3030
3131
3129
2931
2530
3031
2932
29
171616
1616
1415
1416
1519
1519
2717
1717
182016
888
78
66
67
713
511
129
87
119
7
141514
16161515
1714
1915
111311
1315
1013
1619
2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16
Roadside slashing and weed control importance
143
2020 roadside slashing and weed control importance (index scores)
78
76
76
76
76
74
75
71
72
67
78
76
76
76
75
73
73
71
75
67
78
76
76
76
75
74
73
71
76
66
76
73
75
n/a
75
73
74
71
76
69
76
74
75
77
74
73
75
70
75
65
78
76
78
n/a
n/a
75
76
71
n/a
68
78
77
77
n/a
n/a
74
76
72
n/a
66
74
73
74
n/a
n/a
71
71
68
n/a
65
82
80
80
80
78
78
76
76
75
74
50-64
65+
Women
Small Rural
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Men
Interface
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Roadside slashing and weed control importance
144
2020 roadside slashing and weed control importance (%)
38
30
29
30
28
28
32
30
24
32
38
43
35
41
32
35
46
40
39
41
40
40
42
40
40
42
42
39
39
38
39
39
38
38
37
42
19
24
25
25
23
26
23
24
28
24
18
15
22
16
24
22
13
15
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
2
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6
Roadside slashing and weed control performance
145
2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)
62
61
56
56
56
57
55
52
54
53
61
60
54
55
56
55
54
51
53
51
58
54
52
53
54
54
51
50
51
50
61
56
55
56
57
57
51
54
54
52
62
52
54
55
55
55
52
53
52
51
63
n/a
55
55
55
53
n/a
n/a
53
51
63
n/a
57
56
56
56
n/a
n/a
55
52
67
n/a
60
61
61
59
n/a
n/a
59
58
55
54
49
49
49
49
48
48
48
46
18-34
Interface
Men
Overall
Women
35-49
Small Rural
Large Rural
65+
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Roadside slashing and weed control performance
146
2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)
9
12
10
10
11
10
11
11
14
12
8
9
9
9
12
8
7
8
27
34
34
31
34
32
32
35
38
31
27
24
27
27
32
29
25
23
28
28
29
27
28
30
28
28
28
28
27
31
29
28
28
27
26
31
19
15
16
18
15
16
17
16
12
17
20
19
18
20
14
20
22
19
15
9
9
11
9
9
10
8
5
10
16
15
15
14
12
15
18
15
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
147
2020 unsealed roads importance (index scores)
82
81
81
80
81
79
80
79
78
75
78
84
82
81
79
82
80
80
78
78
77
79
81
81
79
78
80
79
79
77
77
76
76
81
80
79
78
80
79
79
78
77
70
78
82
80
78
79
80
78
78
76
76
72
76
n/a
80
n/a
80
81
77
78
n/a
76
n/a
77
n/a
82
n/a
82
83
80
81
n/a
79
n/a
80
n/a
81
n/a
80
82
79
80
n/a
78
n/a
79
83
82
81
81
81
80
80
79
78
76
76
Small Rural
50-64
Interface
35-49
Women
65+
Overall
Large Rural
Men
Regional Centres
18-34
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 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: 12 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
148
2020 unsealed roads importance (%)
42
41
43
39
40
39
39
44
41
43
36
39
51
39
44
34
46
48
39
37
39
38
39
37
39
38
39
39
40
37
40
32
39
36
38
34
34
42
17
16
15
17
17
18
17
14
15
15
21
17
14
17
16
23
17
15
13
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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 importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 12
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
149
2020 unsealed roads performance (index scores)
52
46
45
45
44
43
50
43
43
41
42
52
44
44
43
43
42
48
40
43
41
40
52
45
45
44
44
43
45
43
44
42
41
n/a
45
46
43
43
43
44
44
42
43
40
51
46
48
45
45
45
47
45
44
44
43
n/a
48
46
46
45
45
n/a
n/a
45
n/a
42
n/a
48
47
45
44
43
n/a
n/a
42
n/a
40
n/a
50
48
46
46
46
n/a
n/a
44
n/a
43
55
46
45
44
44
43
43
43
43
42
41
Regional Centres
65+
18-34
Men
Overall
Women
Interface
Small Rural
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 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: 24 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
150
2020 unsealed roads performance (%)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
5
9
5
5
6
5
6
6
5
5
20
21
19
21
20
22
22
20
22
21
29
19
19
22
19
22
22
19
20
30
30
28
28
29
30
30
29
29
25
30
29
31
30
30
30
26
30
32
21
22
24
23
22
22
22
24
21
23
15
21
23
20
22
21
23
23
20
17
16
17
16
16
15
14
16
15
17
7
19
17
17
16
17
19
19
13
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
9
10
6
5
6
7
4
4
5
10
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 24
Business and community development importance
151
2020 business/community development importance (index scores)
72
69
71
71
69
67
67
70
67
70
70
71
68
70
70
69
66
68
69
68
70
n/a
73
69
71
71
70
68
67
70
69
72
n/a
n/a
69
72
73
70
67
69
71
69
72
n/a
n/a
69
71
70
69
68
67
72
67
69
71
n/a
69
71
71
69
68
n/a
n/a
67
70
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
71
71
71
70
69
69
69
68
68
68
68
Regional Centres
50-64
Women
35-49
Overall
65+
Interface
Large Rural
Men
18-34
Small Rural
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 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: 8 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development importance
152
2020 business/community development importance (%)
21
21
21
21
22
20
20
19
24
20
23
21
22
20
22
25
20
41
41
40
43
43
42
45
43
42
41
37
39
43
38
42
40
44
30
31
31
28
27
31
27
30
28
32
31
30
30
35
30
28
26
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
4
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8
Business and community development performance
153
2020 business/community development performance (index scores)
64
64
59
62
61
61
61
60
60
60
58
62
63
58
61
60
60
55
59
60
61
56
62
59
59
60
61
60
58
59
59
65
56
63
58
58
60
59
60
61
59
59
62
56
64
63
60
61
61
60
54
59
59
61
58
65
n/a
n/a
63
62
62
n/a
60
60
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
63
60
60
60
59
59
58
58
57
57
55
18-34
Interface
Large Rural
Women
65+
Overall
Regional Centres
Men
35-49
Small Rural
50-64
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 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 Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Business and community development performance
154
2020 business/community development performance (%)
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
7
9
8
6
8
7
11
6
6
7
33
35
34
33
33
34
35
34
31
33
36
32
35
38
36
29
31
32
31
30
32
29
31
30
31
33
32
32
32
32
32
31
33
32
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
9
11
10
9
10
9
8
11
13
9
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
5
3
7
5
3
2
5
5
3
14
13
15
16
17
15
17
17
11
14
10
13
14
9
11
14
19
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12
Tourism development importance
155
2020 tourism development importance (index scores)
69
61
61
62
59
60
60
57
64
56
48
71
62
63
63
61
62
62
60
n/a
59
51
70
64
63
63
62
63
62
61
n/a
59
53
n/a
64
64
65
63
67
64
62
n/a
62
57
64
67
67
66
65
67
65
63
72
59
50
n/a
66
65
67
65
n/a
64
63
n/a
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
65
64
64
62
62
61
60
58
58
51
Regional Centres
65+
50-64
Women
Overall
Large Rural
35-49
Men
Small Rural
18-34
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Tourism development importance
156
2020 tourism development importance (%)
16
14
16
16
18
19
18
8
21
15
14
15
16
13
15
19
17
33
31
32
34
34
36
37
21
36
34
31
30
35
27
31
34
38
35
36
35
34
35
32
31
40
33
36
37
36
35
40
38
34
31
12
13
13
12
10
10
10
22
8
12
12
14
10
16
12
10
9
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
6
2
2
6
4
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9
Tourism development performance
157
2020 tourism development performance (index scores)
66
64
70
63
64
63
61
63
62
62
58
67
64
64
64
64
63
61
62
60
61
61
67
64
65
64
63
63
65
63
61
61
56
64
64
71
64
62
63
64
63
60
62
56
63
64
67
64
65
63
66
61
62
62
53
n/a
66
n/a
64
66
64
n/a
62
64
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
63
63
63
63
62
62
62
61
61
59
Small Rural
Women
Regional Centres
18-34
65+
Overall
Large Rural
35-49
50-64
Men
Interface
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Tourism development performance
158
2020 tourism development performance (%)
13
13
12
13
13
12
13
9
13
12
15
12
13
14
13
11
13
34
36
37
34
34
35
36
30
36
34
37
34
35
35
35
34
34
29
28
26
29
27
28
28
29
30
30
28
30
28
30
27
31
29
10
10
11
9
9
9
9
11
9
11
9
11
9
10
10
11
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
10
10
11
12
13
13
13
18
9
11
6
10
11
8
10
11
12
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 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
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14
Detailed demographics
159
Gender and age profile
160
2020 gender
2020 age
Men49%
Women51%
6%
19%
23%19%
32%
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 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.
Household structure
2020 household structure (%)
16
10
3
4
25
23
18
1
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 living athome
Married or living with partner, no children
Married or living with partner with children 16 or underat home
Married or living with partner with children but none 16or under at home
Do not wish to answer
161
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
Years lived in area
162
2020 years lived in area (%)
18
17
12
14
15
13
14
14
15
16
15
15
17
16
14
14
14
16
66
68
73
69
69
73
71
72
68
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 11
Years lived in area
2020 years lived in area (%)
18
17
12
14
15
25
16
11
12
18
18
35
16
7
6
16
15
15
17
16
16
27
16
13
16
16
22
20
10
8
22
22
23
24
25
19
29
23
24
23
21
16
35
23
16
17
17
21
18
17
17
12
25
17
17
18
21
12
23
13
27
29
29
28
27
24
17
25
34
27
27
6
18
37
56
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large 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
163
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 11 Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart presents the last five years of data only.
Languages spoken at home
164
2020 languages spoken at home (%)
Languages other than English
33%
English only67%
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
12
CHINESE
GREEK
ITALIAN
HINDI
VIETNAMESE
ARABIC
CROATIAN
FRENCH
GERMAN
SPANISH
DUTCH
HUNGARIAN
JAPANESE
KOREAN
RUSSIAN
OTHER
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%
Country of birth
165
2020 country of birth (%)
Countries other than Australia
40%
Australia60%
6
5
4
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
17
INDIA
CHINA
UNITED KINGDOM
GREECE
NEW ZEALAND
JAPAN
KOREA
FRANCE
GERMANY
HUNGARY
UNITED STATES
CANADA
OTHER
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3
90
82
82
80
72
70
59
58
52
39
24
23
23
17
17
17
16
16
14
12
8
87
79
79
79
71
64
57
50
47
34
22
19
20
13
15
16
10
15
7
10
4
Waste management
Parking facilities
Appearance of public areas
Local streets & footpaths
Sealed local roads
Recreational facilities
Unsealed roads
Art centres & libraries
Informing the community
Community & cultural
Environmental sustainability
Consultation & engagement
Enforcement of local laws
Planning & building permits
Population growth
Business & community dev.
Family support services
Emergency & disaster mngt
Elderly support services
Lobbying
Disadvantaged support serv.
Total household use
Personal use
Personal and household use and experience of council services
2020 personal and household use and experience of services (%)
166
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
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: 12
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences
167
Index Scores
Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.
The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.
Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 months’, based on the scale shown in the second table for each performance measure category, with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.
Appendix A:Index Scores
SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX
FACTOR INDEX VALUE
Very good 9% 100 9
Good 40% 75 30
Average 37% 50 19
Poor 9% 25 2
Very poor 4% 0 0
Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
168
SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX
FACTOR INDEX VALUE
Improved 36% 100 36
Stayed the same 40% 50 20
Deteriorated 23% 0 0
Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56
Demographic
Actual survey sample
size
Weighted base
Maximum margin of error
at 95% confidence
interval
Overall 26,923 24,800 +/-0.6
Men 12,646 12,242 +/-0.9
Women 14,277 12,558 +/-0.8
Metropolitan 6,510 5,600 +/-1.2
Interface 2,502 2,000 +/-2.0
Regional Centres 3,203 3,200 +/-1.7
Large Rural 7,504 6,800 +/-1.1
Small Rural 7,204 7,200 +/-1.2
18-34 years 2,934 6,346 +/-1.8
35-49 years 5,502 5,753 +/-1.3
50-64 years 6,946 4,787 +/-1.2
65+ years 11,541 7,915 +/-0.9
The sample size for the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=26,923. 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=26,923 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 for demographic sub samples are listed in the table below, based on a total population of 3,747,200 people aged 18 years or over across the State, according to ABS estimates.
Each LGA is weighted to an equal population of 400 for analysis purposes, so that each LGA contributes equally to the State-wide result.
Appendix A: Margins of error
169
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing green () and downward directing red arrows ().
Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Overall’ result for the State for that survey question for that year. In the example below:
• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than the overall result.
Further, results shown in green and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2019. In the example below:
• The result among 35-49 year olds is significantly higher than the result achieved among this group in 2019.
Appendix A:Significant difference reporting notation
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)
58
54
57
65
66
65+
50-64
35-49
18-34
Overall
170
Appendix A: Index score significant difference calculation
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))
Where:
• $1 = Index Score 1
• $2 = Index Score 2
• $3 = unweighted sample count 1
• $4 = unweighted sample count 2
• $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.
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
171
Appendix B: Further project information
172
Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section including:
• Background and objectives
• Analysis and reporting
• Glossary of terms
Detailed survey tabulations
Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied Excel file.
Contacts
For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on
(03) 8685 8555 or via email on admin@jwsresearch.com
Appendix B:Further information
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
173
The 2020 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below: • 2020, n=26,923 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 30th January – 22nd March.
• 2019, n=26,739 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2018, n=26,814 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2017, n=27,907 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 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.
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.
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.
Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of each council as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 60% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents, particularly younger people.
A total of n=26,923 completed interviews were achieved across the state. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 30th January – 22nd March, 2020.
Appendix B:Survey methodology and sampling
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
174
Appendix B:Analysis and reporting
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
In 2020, 62 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings, 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 2012-2020 vary slightly. Please note that council groupings changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within the reported charts.
Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small Rural
Banyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast AlpineBoroondara Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw AraratBrimbank Mornington Peninsula Horsham Campaspe BenallaFrankston Whittlesea Latrobe Colac Otway BulokeGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura Corangamite Central Goldfields
Greater Dandenong Wangaratta Glenelg GannawarraKingston Warrnambool Golden Plains Hepburn
Knox Wodonga Macedon Ranges HindmarshManningham Mitchell IndigoMaroondah Moira LoddonMelbourne Moorabool MansfieldPort Phillip Mount Alexander Murrindindi
Stonnington Moyne Northern GrampiansWhitehorse Southern Grampians Pyrenees
Surf Coast Queenscliffe Swan Hill StrathbogieWellington West Wimmera
Yarriambiack
Non-participating councils: Ballarat, Bayside, Darebin, East Gippsland, Greater Shepparton, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Melton, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Nillumbik, South Gippsland, Towong, Wyndham, and Yarra.
175
The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:
• The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.
• As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to the known population distribution of each Council according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.
• The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.
As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2020 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.
Appendix B:2012 survey revision
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
176
Core, optional and tailored questions
Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2020 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 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Comparison of optional questions is made against other participating councils in the council group and against all councils State-wide that also asked the same optional question.
Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council. 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 B:Core, optional and tailored questions
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
177
Appendix B:Analysis and reporting
Reporting
Every council that participated in the 2020 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:
http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey.
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
178
Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.
CSS: 2020 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.
Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.
Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.
Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.
Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).
Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.
Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.
Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.
Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.
Statewide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.
Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.
Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.
Appendix B:Glossary of terms
J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide
179
THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...
FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.
Contact us03 8685 8555
John ScalesManaging Directorjscales@jwsresearch.com
Katrina CoxDirector of Client Serviceskcox@jwsresearch.com
Follow us@JWSResearch
Mark ZukerManaging Directormzuker@jwsresearch.com
top related