community research - 2014 - cessnock city council 1... · satisfaction with level of communication...
TRANSCRIPT
Cessnock City Council
Community Research - 2014
Prepared by: Micromex Research
Date: December 2014
Background &
Methodology
Table of Contents Introduction
Background & Methodology ...................................................................................................... 1
Sample Profile .............................................................................................................................. 3
Cessnock – Quality of Life .......................................................................................................... 4
Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 5
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 8
Summary & Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living in Cessnock .................................. 20
Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................................20
Community ...........................................................................................................................................21
Economy ...............................................................................................................................................22
Environment ..........................................................................................................................................23
Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................24
Governance .........................................................................................................................................25
Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan ............................................................................. 26
Priority Issues for Residents and Their Families ........................................................................ 27
Priority Issues for Towns and Villages ....................................................................................... 28
Priority Issues for the Cessnock LGA ........................................................................................ 29
Importance of, & Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities ......................................... 30
Community ...........................................................................................................................................32
Economy ...............................................................................................................................................37
Environment ..........................................................................................................................................41
Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................46
Governance .........................................................................................................................................51
Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance .............................................................. 56
Importance of, & Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities ......................................... 57
Support for Financial Sustainability from Council ................................................................... 60
Financial Sustainability Initiative .............................................................................................. 61
Satisfaction with Level of Communication .............................................................................. 62
Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 65
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 1
Background & Methodology Cessnock Council sought to examine community attitudes and perceptions towards current and future
services and facilities provided by Council. Key objectives of the research included:
o To assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities,
services and facilities
o To identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance
o To identify the community’s level of satisfaction with regards to contact they have had with Council
staff
o To identify trends and benchmark results against the research conducted previously
o To assess progress against the outcomes in the community strategic plan
To facilitate this, Micromex Research was contracted to develop a survey template that enabled Council
to effectively analyse attitudes and trends within the community.
Questionnaire
Micromex Research, together with Cessnock Council, developed the questionnaire.
A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.
Data collection
The survey was conducted during the period 8th – 13th November 2014 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm, Monday to
Friday and from 10am to 4pm Saturday.
Survey area
Cessnock Council Government Area.
Sample selection and error
The sample consisted of a total of 401 residents. The selection of respondents was by means of a computer
based random selection process using the electronic White Pages.
A sample size of 401 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence.
The sample was weighted by age to reflect the 2011 ABS census data.
This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=401 residents, that 19 times out of 20
we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%. Therefore, the research findings documented in this
report should be interpreted by Cessnock Council as not just the opinions of 401 residents, but as an
accurate and robust measure of the entire community’s attitudes.
Interviewing
Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia) Standards
and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct.
Background & Methodology
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 2
Prequalification
Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as having lived in the Cessnock Council area for a minimum of
six months and not being employed or having an immediate family member employed by Cessnock
Council or a market research company.
Data analysis
The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional. To identify the statistically significant
differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’ were
used. ‘Z Tests’ were also used to determine statistically significant differences between column
percentages.
Ratings questions
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance, satisfaction or agreement and 5 the
highest importance, satisfaction or agreement, was used in all rating questions.
This scale allowed for a mid-range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.
Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate their
satisfaction with that service/facility.
Percentages
All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly equal
100%.
Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating
to a sample of residents rather than the total number. This difference (sampling error) may occur
due to imperfections in reporting and errors made in processing the data. This may occur in any
enumeration, whether it is a full count or sample.
Efforts have been made to reduce the non-sampling error by careful design of the questionnaire
and detailed checking of completed questionnaires.
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 1
Sample Profile
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 3
Sample Profile
Sampling error
A sample size of 401 residents provides a sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence. This means
that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=401 residents, that 19 times out of 20 we would
expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.
Base: n=401
64%
15%
13%
7%
1%
31%
24%
24%
21%
51%
49%
0% 25% 50% 75%
More than 20 years
11 – 20 years
6 – 10 years
3 – 5 years
6 months – 2 years
60 years and over
45 – 59
30 – 44
18 – 29
Female
Male
Gender
Age
Time lived in area
Key Findings
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 4
Cessnock – Quality of Life
Summary
67% of residents agreed that Cessnock offers a good quality of life. This has remained steady since 2009, and
is similar across the age and gender demographics.
‘The area offers a good quality of life’
2014 2012 2009 18 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 + Male Female
Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
Base: n = 401
2%
6%
25%
45%
22%
0% 25% 50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Mean rating – 3.78
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 5
Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan
Summary
In terms of the five desired outcomes of the2023 Community Strategic Plan, only three have a net positive
agreement outcome – Cessnock LGA is ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’, ‘a connected, safe and
creative community’ and it has ‘accessible infrastructure, services and facilities’.
Residents are polarised in terms of Cessnock having ‘a sustainable and prosperous economy’, and they were
more inclined to disagree that there is ‘civic leadership and effective governance’.
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023, how well do
you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?
A sustainable and healthy
environment
A connected, safe and creative
community
Accessible infrastructure, services
and facilities
A sustainable and prosperous
economy
Civic leadership and effective
governance
Mean
ratings
3.36
3.26
3.10
3.01
2.84
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
-21%
-23%
-23%
-12%
-11%
-13%
-6%
-7%
-4%
-4%
18%
25%
27%
32%
42%
7%
5%
10%
7%
7%
-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 6
Community Strategic Plan Outcomes – Highest Priorities for the Cessnock LGA
Summary
When asked an open-ended question about the highest priority issue for the LGA, ‘Roads’ was the standout
issue mentioned by residents, with 42% of respondents indicating that they considered it a priority. Whilst this is
down on the 50% of mentions in 2012, it is still a very high result for an open-ended question (it was also a
dominant issue on other open-ended questions about priority issues for ‘you and your family’[21% of
mentions] and ‘your town or village’ [34% of mentions]).
Q2d. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the Cessnock City Council area?
5%
5%
5%
8%
17%
42%
0% 25% 50%
Effectively planning and
managing development
Encouraging growth in the
local economy
Access to and quality of
health services
Public safety and crime
reduction
Expanding employment
opportunities
Local road network -
Improve/upgrade/maintain
Base: n = 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 8
Key Findings Overview (Overall satisfaction)
Summary
80% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance. This is the same result
as our NSW Regional Benchmark, and similar to the All of NSW Benchmark. More importantly, this represents a
significant increase from the 2012 Cessnock result of 2.43 – and is a return to the 2009 level.
Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two
issues but across all responsibility areas?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27
Overall
2014
Overall
2012
Overall
2009
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22▲ 2.43 3.23
NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW
Cessnock
City
Council
2014
Mean ratings 3.45 3.22 3.31 3.22
Scale: 1= not at all satisfied, 5= very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of satisfaction (by group)
Base: n= 401
6%
14%
39%
35%
6%
0% 20% 40%
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 9
Comparison to LGA Benchmarks
Cessnock Council residents are more satisfied than the LGA Benchmark score for 3 of the 23 comparable
measures, 3 were equal, and 17 below the Benchmark.
Service/Facility
Cessnock
Council
Satisfaction
Scores
Satisfaction
Benchmark
Above the Benchmark
Library services 4.2 4.1
Performing Arts Centre 4.2 3.8
Presentation of the CBD main streets 3.4 3.3
Equal to the Benchmark
Sporting fields and buildings 3.7 3.7
Heritage conservation 3.5 3.5
Flood prevention 3.3 3.3
Below the Benchmark
Waste collection and disposal 3.8 4.1
Recycling and waste reduction 3.7 3.9
Maintaining open space and bushland 3.5 3.6
Swimming pools 3.5 3.7
Buildings for community activities and meetings 3.4 3.6
Parks and recreation areas 3.3 3.7
Environmental protection 3.2 3.4
Stormwater drainage 3.2 3.3
Encouraging business and industry 3.1 3.2
Facilities and services for youth 3.0 3.1
Information supplied to residents about Council activities 3.0 3.3
Long term planning and vision 3.0 3.1
Community involvement in Council decision making 2.9 3.0
Cycleways 2.8 3.2
Public toilets 2.8 3.1
Footpaths 2.5 3.0
Developing and maintaining the road network 2.1 2.8
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 10
Key Importance Trends
Compared to the previous research conducted in 2012, there was a significant increase in residents’ levels
of importance with 2 of the 32 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:
Community services and facilities planning (3.89 cf. 3.64)
Parks and recreation areas (4.85 cf. 4.41)
Key Satisfaction Trends
Compared to the previous research conducted in 2012, there was a significant increase in residents’ levels
of satisfaction with 14 of the 32 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:
Cemetery management (3.62 cf. 3.45)
Community involvement in Council decision making (2.87 cf. 2.69)
Community services and facilities planning (3.29 cf. 3.03)
Council’s response to community needs (2.80 cf. 2.60)
Cycleways (2.81 cf. 2.49)
Developing and maintaining the road network (2.14 cf. 1.62)
Flood prevention (3.26 cf. 2.82)
Long term planning and vision (2.96 cf. 2.77)
Noxious weed control (3.17 cf. 2.95)
Presentation of the CBD main streets (3.42 cf. 3.25)
Regulating traffic flow (2.96 cf. 2.59)
Sporting fields and buildings (3.67 cf. 3.42)
Stormwater drainage (3.17 cf. 2.80)
The way Council employees deal with the public (3.27 cf. 3.02)
Encouragingly, these attributes cover a range of services/facilities, from tangible service delivery areas (eg:
roads, traffic flow, cycle-ways, drainage and weed control) to the more attitudinal/cultural aspects (eg:
community involvement in Council decision making, Council responsiveness to community needs, and the
way Council employees deal with the public).
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 11
Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)
The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community
satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook a
2 step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction data, after which we conducted a
third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify which
facilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.
By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:
1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities
2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations
Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)
PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the mean
satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents
are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a range of different services or
facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or
satisfaction. These scores are aggregated at a total community level.
The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the
provision of that service by Cessnock Council and the expectation of the community for that
service/facility.
In the table on the following page, we can see the 32 services and facilities that residents rated by
importance and then by satisfaction.
When analysing the performance gaps, it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap of up to
1.0 is acceptable when the initial importance rating is 4.0+, as it indicates that residents consider the
attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance and that the satisfaction they have with Cessnock
Council performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to ‘moderately high’.
For example, ‘maintaining open space and bushland’ was given an importance score of 4.37, which
indicates that it is considered an area of ‘very high’ importance by residents. At the same time it was given
a satisfaction score of 3.46, which indicates that residents are ‘moderately satisfied’ with Cessnock
Council’s performance and focus on that measure.
In the case of a performance gap such as for the ‘Performing Arts Centre’ (3.77 importance vs. 4.23
satisfaction), we can identify that the facility/service has only ‘moderately high’ importance to the broader
community, but for residents who feel that this facility is important, it is providing a ‘very high’ level of
satisfaction.
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 12
When analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the
absolute size of the performance gap.
Performance Gap Ranking
Ranking
2012
Ranking
2014 Service/Facility
Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean
Performance
Gap
1 1 Developing and maintaining the road network 4.71 2.14 2.57
6 2 Kerb and guttering 4.17 2.41 1.76
5 3 Footpaths 4.18 2.49 1.69
4 4 Council’s response to community needs 4.46 2.80 1.66
19 5▲ Parks and recreation areas 4.85 3.26 1.59
3 6 Regulating traffic flow 4.45 2.96 1.49
8 7 Long term planning and vision 4.43 2.96 1.47
9 8
Community involvement in Council decision making 4.33 2.87 1.46
7 Public toilets 4.21 2.75 1.46
15 10 Encouraging business and industry 4.40 3.07 1.33
12 11 Information supplied to residents about Council activities 4.30 3.01 1.29
10 12 Stormwater drainage 4.36 3.17 1.19
16 13 Managing residential development 4.24 3.07 1.17
13 14 The way Council employees deal with the public 4.38 3.27 1.11
11 15
Flood prevention 4.36 3.26 1.10
18 Environmental protection 4.34 3.24 1.10
14 17 Cycleways 3.86 2.81 1.05
17 18 Noxious weed control 4.16 3.17 0.99
21 19 Facilities and services for youth 3.94 2.96 0.98
20 20 Maintaining open space and bushland 4.37 3.46 0.91
22 21
Recycling and waste reduction 4.53 3.72 0.81
23 Waste collection and disposal 4.57 3.76 0.81
24 23 Presentation of the CBD main streets 4.15 3.42 0.73
26 24 Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and
takeaway shops 4.34 3.63 0.71
29 25 Swimming pools 4.17 3.50 0.67
27 26 Heritage conservation 4.13 3.47 0.66
25 27
Sporting fields and buildings 4.27 3.67 0.60
30 Community services and facilities planning 3.89 3.29 0.60
28 29 Cemetery management 4.15 3.62 0.53
31 30 Buildings for community activities and meetings 3.66 3.37 0.29
32 31 Library services 3.92 4.24 -0.32
33 32 Performing Arts Centre 3.77 4.23 -0.46
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▲Significantly larger gap than 2012
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 13
When we examine the 11 largest performance gaps, we can identify that all the services or facilities have
been rated as ‘high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident satisfaction for all of these areas is
between 2.14 and 3.26, which indicates that resident satisfaction for these measures is ‘moderately low’ to
‘moderate’.
Ranking Service/ Facility Importance
Mean
Satisfaction
Mean
Performance
Gap
1 Developing and maintaining the road network 4.71 2.14 2.57
2 Kerb and guttering 4.17 2.41 1.76
3 Footpaths 4.18 2.49 1.69
4 Council’s response to community needs 4.46 2.80 1.66
5 Parks and recreation areas 4.85 3.26 1.59
6 Regulating traffic flow 4.45 2.96 1.49
7 Long term planning and vision 4.43 2.96 1.47
8 Community involvement in Council decision making 4.33 2.87 1.46
9 Public toilets 4.21 2.75 1.46
10 Encouraging business and industry 4.40 3.07 1.33
11 Information supplied to residents about Council activities 4.30 3.01 1.29
The key outcomes of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities to improve satisfaction
across a range of services/facilities, ‘developing and maintaining the road network’ and the related issues
of ‘Kerb and guttering’ and ‘Footpaths’ are the areas of least relative satisfaction.
Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across
all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level.
This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 14
Quadrant Analysis
Step 2. Quadrant Analysis
Quadrant analysis is a useful tool for planning future directions. It combines the stated needs of the
community and assesses Cessnock Council’s performance in relation to these needs.
This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and
rated satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify
where the facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the average stated importance score was
4.25 and the average rated satisfaction score was 3.22. Therefore, any facility or service that received a
mean stated importance score of ≥ 4.25 would be plotted in the higher importance section and,
conversely, any that scored < 4.25 would be plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise is
undertaken with the satisfaction ratings above, equal to or below 3.22. Each service or facility is then
plotted in terms of satisfaction and importance, resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.
Quadrant Analysis – Importance v Satisfaction
ImproveHigher importance, lower satisfaction
MaintainHigher importance, higher satisfaction
Imp
ort
an
ce
NicheLower importance, lower satisfaction
SatisfactionCommunity
Lower importance, higher satisfaction
Cycleways
Facilities and services for youth
Footpaths
Kerb and guttering
Managing residential development
Noxious weed control
Public toilets
Environmental protectionFlood prevention
Inspection of the health and hygiene
of local restaurants and takeaway
shops
Maintaining open
space and bushland
Parks and recreation areas
Recycling and waste reduction
Sporting fields and buildings
The way Council employees
deal with the public
Waste collection and disposal
Community involvement in Council
decision making
Council’s response to
community needs
Developing and maintaining the road
network
Encouraging business
and industry
Information supplied to residents
about Council activities
Long term planning and vision
Regulating traffic flow
Stormwater drainage
Buildings for community activities and
meetings
Cemetery management
Community services and facilities
planning
Heritage conservation
Library services
Performing Arts Centre
Presentation of the CBD main streets
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 15
Explaining the 4 quadrants
Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘parks and recreation areas’, are Council’s core
strengths, and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas,
as they are influential and address clear community needs.
Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘developing and maintaining the road network’, are
areas where Council is perceived to be currently under-performing and are key concerns in the eyes of
your residents. In the vast majority of cases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to
better meet the community’s expectations.
Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘kerb and guttering’, are of a relatively lower priority
(and the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to
a particular segment of the community.
Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY, such as ‘presentation of the CBD main streets’,
are core strengths, but in relative terms they are less important than other areas and Council’s servicing in
these areas may already be exceeding expectation. Consideration could be given to rationalising focus in
these areas as they are not community priorities for improvement.
Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual
questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when
they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of Council performance.
Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas that are
problematic. No matter how much focus a Council dedicates to the ‘developing and maintaining the road
network’, it will often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of
local roads can always be better.
Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of
the community, they do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to change the
community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.
Therefore, in order to identify how Cessnock Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction, we
conducted further analysis.
The Shapley Value Regression
We recently finalised the development of a Council Satisfaction Model, to identify priorities that will drive
overall satisfaction with Council.
This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews conducted
since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities they stated
as being important does not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction with the Council. This
regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and
explanatory variables.
In 2014, we revised the Shapley regression analysis to identify the directional contribution of key services
and facilities with regard to satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Council’s overall performance.
What Does This Mean?
The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the
appropriate resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using
regression analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall satisfaction. We call the
outcomes ‘derived importance’.
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 16
Key Drivers of Satisfaction with Cessnock Council
The results in the chart below provide Cessnock Council with a complete picture of both the extrinsic and
intrinsic community priorities and motivations and identify what attributes are the key drivers of community
satisfaction.
These top 12 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that
the remaining 20 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s
satisfaction with Cessnock Council performance. Therefore, whilst all 32 service/facility areas are important,
only a minority of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.
These 12 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Cessnock Council will
improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of
influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.
Three broad areas emerge in the above data:
Community engagement: ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’ (8.1%), ‘Council’s
response to community needs’ (7.8%), ‘The way Council employees deal with the public’ (5.1%),
and ‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ (4.9%).
Planning: ‘Long term planning and vision’ (9.8%) and ‘Managing residential development’ (2.9%)
Roads: ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ (5.3%), ‘Kerb and guttering’ (3%).
2.9%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
7.8%
8.1%
9.8%
0% 5% 10%
Managing residential development
Kerb and guttering
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops
Waste collection and disposal
Cemetery management
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Developing and maintaining the road network
Council’s response to community needs
Community involvement in Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 17
Clarifying Priorities
By mapping satisfaction against derived importance we can see for some of the core drivers, Council is
already providing ‘moderately high’ or greater levels of satisfaction, i.e. ‘waste collection and disposal’,
‘inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops’ and ‘cemetery
management’. Council should look to maintain/consolidate their delivery in these areas.
It is also apparent that there is room to elevate satisfaction within the variables that fall in the ‘lower’ and
‘moderate satisfactions’ regions of the chart. If Cessnock Council can address these core drivers, they will
be able to improve resident satisfaction with their performance.
Inspection of the health
and hygiene of local
restaurants and
takeaway shopsPresentation of the CBD
main streets
Managing residential
development
Cemetery management
Developing and
maintaining the road
network
Kerb and guttering
Waste collection and
disposal
Council’s response to
community needs
The way Council
employees deal with the
public
Community involvement
in Council decision
making
Information supplied to
residents about Council
activities
Long term planning and
vision
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
2.8% 3.8% 4.8% 5.8% 6.8% 7.8% 8.8% 9.8%
Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived
Importance Identifies the Community
Priority Areas
Sta
ted
Sa
tisf
ac
tio
n
Derived Importance
Moderately High
Satisfaction ≥ 3.60
Moderate Satisfaction
3.00 – 3.59
Low Satisfaction
≤ 2.99
The above analysis reinforces the findings of the previous page – namely, that the three areas of
‘Community engagement’, ‘Planning’ and ‘Roads’ could be targeted for optimisation. Council should be
looking to either align their delivery with resident expectations or more actively inform/engage residents of
Council’s position and advocacy on these matters.
Key Findings
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 18
Advanced Shapley Outcomes
The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall
satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion
of the residents.
The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding the transition towards
satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will
positively transition residents who are currently ‘not at all satisfied’ towards being at least ‘somewhat
satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance.
The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If we
can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively
transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat satisfied’ towards being more satisfied with
Council’s overall performance.
Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers
Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community
-6.0%
-5.2%
-4.7%
-4.7%
-3.5%
-1.5%
-1.7%
-0.5%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.4%
-1.9%
3.8%
2.9%
3.1%
0.6%
1.6%
3.4%
2.1%
3.2%
0.4%
1.2%
1.6%
0.9%
-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Long term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision making
Council’s response to community needs
Developing and maintaining the road network
The way Council employees deal with the public
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
Cemetery management
Waste collection and disposal
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway
shops
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Kerb and guttering
Managing residential development
Optimisers
(25%)
Barriers
(36%)
An attribute such as ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ has the ability to cause overall
dissatisfaction with Council, but is less likely to drive overall satisfaction. In contrast, an attribute such as
‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ won’t necessarily generate overall dissatisfaction
with Council, but it is capable of driving satisfaction with Council. And an attribute such as ‘Kerb and
guttering’ can drive both overall satisfaction and overall dissatisfaction with Council.
Summary &
Recommendations
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 19
Summary & Recommendations Summary:
Results of the 2014 Community Survey are generally very favourable for Cessnock City Council:
Overall rating of the quality of life that the region offers remains positive, and in line with 2012 and
2009 results
In terms of the five strategic plan pillars, ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’, ‘a connected,
safe and creative community’, and ‘accessible infrastructure, services and facilities’ have a net
positive agreement rating, however, residents are polarised in terms of ‘sustainable and prosperous
economy’, and they were more inclined to disagree with ‘civic leadership and effective
governance’
Overall satisfaction with the performance of Council has bounced back from the poor result in 2012,
and is back in line with the 2009 results
Compared to 2012, there have been significant increases in resident satisfaction for 14 of the 32
surveyed attributes – and these attributes cover a range of services/facilities, from tangible service
delivery areas (e.g. roads, traffic flow, cycleways, drainage, weed control, etc.) to the more
attitudinal/cultural aspects (e.g. community involvement in Council decision making, Council
responsiveness to community needs, and the way Council employees deal with the public)
However, there are several areas for improvement:
The condition of the local roads (and related issues of kerb and guttering and footpaths) is a key
concern for residents. On a range of measures, including unaided and aided questions and our
Shapley regression analysis, roads were considered to be a problem (albeit their ratings are better
than they were in 2012)
The way Council engages with the community is another area for improvement – ‘Council’s
response to community needs’, ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’, ‘Information
supplied to residents about Council activities’. Whilst some respondents were able to articulate
these engagement issues, they emerged as a key driver of overall satisfaction with Council on our
Shapley regression analysis, which can uncover underlying drivers that some respondents may not
be able to articulate
Long-term planning – again, this was an area that featured in some of the questionnaire responses,
but was more pronounced in the Shapley regression analysis
Recommendations:
Based on the research outcomes, Council should consider the following:
1. Continue to focus on opportunities that will inform and include residents in decision-making and
long-term planning for the LGA
Following on from the above, given the importance Cessnock residents place on community
engagement and information provision, Council should consider undertaking some
community workshops to better understand what community expectations are in terms of
engagement
Similarly, the community workshops could be used to explore resident expectations of
Council’s role in long-term planning for the LGA
2. Focus on maintaining local roads and footpaths. Whilst it could be argued that some residents will
never be satisfied with the state of the local roads (i.e. there may always be some dissatisfaction),
having a visible presence in road repairs and communicating successful outcomes would be
appreciated by the community
3. Be mindful that the community remains concerned about Council’s civic leadership/governance,
so communicate governance success stories
Section A The Cessnock City Council
Area as a Place to Live
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 20
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Quality of Life
Summary
67% of residents agreed that Cessnock offers a good quality of life. This has remained steady since 2009,
and is similar across the age and gender demographics.
‘The area offers a good quality of life’
2014 2012 2009 18 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 + Male Female
Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
Base: n = 401
2%
6%
25%
45%
22%
0% 25% 50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Mean rating – 3.78
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 21
Community Summary
49% of residents ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ that ‘there is a strong community spirit in the Cessnock area’
and 54% agree to strongly agree that ‘if there was a problem in my community, people would band
together to solve it’.
There were high levels of disagreement with ‘facilities and services for youth are adequate’ (46%) and
‘facilities and services for children are adequate’ (36%).
Residents aged 18-29 were more likely to agree that the ‘facilities and services for the aged are adequate’
than were those aged 30+.
Residents aged 30-44 were least likely to agree that ‘facilities and services for children are adequate’.
‘Facilities and services for youth are adequate’ and ‘quality housing is both available and affordable’ have
increased significantly since 2012.
Q. In this section we would like your views on the Cessnock City Council Area as a place to live. Our desire is to gauge your views
on the broader attributes of the Cessnock community, although many of these issues are not the responsibility of Council.
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.
There is a strong community
spirit in the Cessnock area
If there was a problem in my
community, people would
band together to solve it
Arts, entertainment and culture
are well catered for
It is a safe place to live
Quality housing is both
available and affordable
Facilities and services for the
aged are adequate
Facilities and services for
children are adequate
Facilities and services for youth
are adequate
Mean ratings
2014 2012
3.53 3.39
3.52 3.40
3.28 3.39
3.26 3.12
3.21▲ 2.88
3.00 2.93
2.86 2.85
2.59▲ 2.27
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012
-27%
-24%
-19%
-13%
-17%
-16%
-15%
-8%
-19%
-12%
-10%
-7%
-6%
-7%
-5%
-5%
14%
21%
24%
30%
31%
26%
33%
27%
5%
7%
8%
9%
12%
16%
21%
22%
-60% -30% 0% 30% 60%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 22
Economy Summary
89% of residents agree to strongly agree that ‘the vineyards play an important role in the local economy’,
84% that ‘conferences and events are important for the area’, and 75% that ‘tourism is promoted well’.
There were very high levels of disagreement with the statements ‘there are enough employment
opportunities’ (71%), and ‘industry and business development is working well’ (39%), and with ‘education
and training opportunities are good’ (33%).
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
Since 2012, ‘there are enough employment opportunities’ has experienced a significant reduction in
residents’ estimation, recording 71% disagreement.
The vineyards play an
important role in the
local economy
Conferences and events
are important for the
area
Tourism is promoted well
High quality and
environmentally
friendly industries are
encouraged
Education and training
opportunities are
good
Industry and business
development is
working well
There are enough
employment
opportunities
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.45 4.49
4.28 4.25
3.99 3.93
3.11 3.08
2.98 3.02
2.83 2.79
2.16▼ 2.40
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012
-44%
-27%
-23%
-11%
-7%
-4%
-4%
-27%
-12%
-10%
-11%
-3%
-1%
7%
21%
25%
29%
39%
36%
27%
3%
6%
8%
8%
36%
48%
62%
-90% -60% -30% 0% 30% 60% 90%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 23
Environment
Summary
The majority of residents agreed to strongly agreed that ‘the bushland that supports a diversity of native
plants and animals is valuable’ (76%), ‘waste collection and disposal are well managed’ (62%), ‘the area’s
heritage is well conserved’ (59%), and ‘the area has an attractive appearance’ (54%).
There were high levels of disagreement with the statements ‘development overall is well planned and well
managed’ (37%), ‘residential development is well managed’ (33%), and ‘there is a wide range of
recreation and leisure opportunities’ (33%).
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
‘The area has an attractive appearance’, ‘the natural environment is well managed’ and ‘residential
development is well managed’ have increased in residents’ agreement since 2012.
The bushland that supports a
diversity of native plants
and animals is valuable
Waste collection and disposal
are well managed
The area’s heritage is well
conserved
The area has an attractive
appearance
There are enough good
quality open spaces
The natural environment is
well managed
Environmental issues are
handled well
There is a wide range of
recreation and leisure
opportunities
Residential development is
well managed
Development overall is well
planned and well
managed
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.11 4.19
3.64 3.61
3.61 3.62
3.50▲ 3.23
3.34 3.21
3.26▲ 3.06
3.03 2.89
2.98 3.10
2.94▲ 2.76
2.85 2.71
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012
-15%
-12%
-11%
-7%
-8%
-6%
-5%
-3%
-6%
-2%
-22%
-21%
-22%
-19%
-12%
-19%
-9%
-7%
-10%
20%
21%
25%
20%
30%
30%
37%
43%
38%
34%
8%
9%
8%
9%
11%
17%
17%
16%
24%
42%
-80% -40% 0% 40% 80%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 24
Infrastructure
Summary
Residents indicated there is a need for improving the infrastructure in the Cessnock LGA, particularly for
health facilities.
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
Whilst still rated with high levels of disagreement, ‘the road network is effective and in good repair’ and
‘health facilities are sufficient’ have improved significantly since 2012.
Health facilities are sufficient
There is enough public transport
The road network is effective
and in good repair
Mean ratings
2014 2012
2.80▲ 2.64
2.71 2.59
1.91▲ 1.45
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012
-34%
-23%
-26%
-43%
-23%
-14%
4%
17%
23%
3%
12%
6%
-80% -40% 0% 40% 80%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 25
Governance
46% of residents agree to strongly agree that ‘people volunteer and get involved in their community’ (46%),
‘laws and regulations are enforced consistently and fairly’ (42%), and ‘the opportunity exists for me to be
involved in making decisions about my community’ (38%).
There were strong levels of disagreement with the statements ‘there is good co-operation between all
levels of government in the area’ (39%) and ‘there is a clear plan and direction for the future’ (31%).
With the exception of ‘the opportunity exists for me to be involved in making decisions about my
community’, agreement with all of these statements has significantly increased since 2012.
People volunteer and get
involved in their community
Laws and regulations are
enforced consistently and
fairly
The opportunity exists for me to
be involved in making
decisions about my
community
There is a clear plan and
direction for the future
There is good co-operation
between all levels of
government in the area
Mean ratings
2014 2012
3.48▲ 3.29
3.26▲ 2.96
3.15 3.04
2.86▲ 2.50
2.74▲ 2.41
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012
-23%
-19%
-18%
-16%
-9%
-16%
-12%
-7%
-5%
-1%
21%
18%
28%
31%
34%
4%
6%
10%
11%
12%
-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Section B Priority Issues within the
Cessnock LGA
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 26
Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan
Summary
49% of residents agree to strongly agree that the Cessnock LGA is ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’,
39% that it is ‘a connected, safe and creative community’ and 37% that it has ‘accessible infrastructure,
services and facilities’.
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023, how well do
you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?
A sustainable and healthy
environment
A connected, safe and creative
community
Accessible infrastructure, services
and facilities
A sustainable and prosperous
economy
Civic leadership and effective
governance
Mean
ratings
3.36
3.26
3.10
3.01
2.84
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
-21%
-23%
-23%
-12%
-11%
-13%
-6%
-7%
-4%
-4%
18%
25%
27%
32%
42%
7%
5%
10%
7%
7%
-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
Base: n = 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 27
Priority Issues for Residents and Their Families
Summary
Roads and employment were the 2 priority issues for residents and their families.
Q2b. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue for you and your family?
7%
9%
11%
19%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Providing services and activities for families
Public safety and crime reduction
Access to and quality of health services
Expanding employment opportunities
Local road network -
Improve/upgrade/maintain
Base: n = 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 28
Priority Issues for Towns and Villages
Summary
The predominant issue identified by residents for the towns and villages was roads.
Q2c. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the town or village where you live?
5%
6%
7%
10%
15%
34%
0% 20% 40%
Effectively planning and managing
development
Encouraging growth in the local
economy
Providing services and activities for
children/young people
Public safety and crime reduction
Expanding employment
opportunities
Local road network -
Improve/upgrade/maintain
Base: n = 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 29
Priority Issues for the Cessnock LGA
Summary
‘Roads’ was the standout issue recognised for the LGA, with almost half of the residents indicating that they
considered it a priority.
Q2d. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the Cessnock City Council area?
5%
5%
5%
8%
17%
42%
0% 25% 50%
Effectively planning and
managing development
Encouraging growth in the
local economy
Access to and quality of
health services
Public safety and crime
reduction
Expanding employment
opportunities
Local road network -
Improve/upgrade/maintain
Base: n = 401
Section C Detailed Findings Importance/Satisfaction – Council Services and Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 30
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest importance
or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.
Interpreting the Mean Scores
Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined level of
‘importance’ or ‘satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:
Mean rating:
1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction
2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction
2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ levels of importance/satisfaction
3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction
3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction
3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction
4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction
4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction
Participants were asked to indicate which best described their opinion of the importance of the following
services/facilities to them. Respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were then asked
to rate their satisfaction with that service/facility.
We Explored Resident Response To32 Service Areas
Community
Community services and facilities planning
Buildings for community activities and meetings
Faciliites and services for youth
Library services
Public toilets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
Performing Arts Centre
Economy
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Encouraging business and industry
Environment
Managing residential development
Heriatge conservation
Environmental protection
Noxious weed control
Maintaining open space and bushland
Parks and recreation areas
Sporting fields and buildings
Swimming pools
Cemetery management
Waste collection and disposal
Recycling and waste reduction
Infrastructure
Developing and maintaining the road network
Regulating traffic flow
Footpaths
Cycleways
Kerb and guttering
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Governance
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Council's response to community needs
Community involvement in Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 31
Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction
By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different
Nett Priority Areas.
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance
5.8%
14.0%
18.9%
25.5%
35.7%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0%
Nett - Economy
Nett - Community
Nett - Infrastructure
Nett - Environment
Nett - Governance
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 32
Community
Services and facilities explored included:
Community services and facilities planning
Buildings for community activities and meetings
Facilities and services for youth
Public toilets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
Library services
Performing Arts Centre
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for 14% of overall satisfaction, based on the regression
analysis.
Community – Contributes to 14% of Overall Satisfaction with
Council
1.0%
1.1%
1.5%
1.9%
2.5%
2.6%
3.4%
14.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0%
Performing Arts Centre
Public toilets
Library services
Buildings for community activities
and meetings
Community services and facilities
planning
Facilities and services for youth
Inspection of the health and hygiene
of local restaurants and takeaway
shops
Nett - Community
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 33
Community
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.34 4.26
4.21 4.21
3.94 3.82
3.92 3.84
3.89▲ 3.64
3.77 3.72
3.66 3.52
Mean ratings
2014 2012
3.63 3.53
2.75 2.58
2.96 2.82
4.24 4.20
3.29▲ 3.03
4.23 4.19
3.37 3.28
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
22%
36%
30%
37%
38%
54%
54%
38%
30%
38%
33%
34%
23%
30%
28%
15%
23%
20%
17%
15%
10%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Buildings for community activities and
meetings
Performing Arts Centre
Community services and facilities
planning
Library services
Facilities and services for youth
Public toilets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of
local restaurants and takeaway shops
Importance
Very important Important Somewhat important
Base: n = 401
10%
45%
13%
41%
9%
7%
18%
38%
39%
25%
45%
24%
18%
39%
33%
10%
43%
13%
34%
35%
34%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Buildings for community activities and
meetings
Performing Arts Centre
Community services and facilities
planning
Library services
Facilities and services for youth
Public toilets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of
local restaurants and takeaway shops
Satisfaction
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Base: n = 239-341
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 34
Community
Performance Gap Year on year
shift 2014 2012
Public toilets 1.46 1.63 +0.17
Facilities and services for youth 0.98 0.99 +0.01
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops 0.71 0.76 +0.05
Community services and facilities planning 0.60 0.58 -0.02
Buildings for community activities and meetings 0.29 0.23 -0.06
Library services -0.32 -0.34 -0.02
Performing Arts Centre -0.46 -0.5 -0.04
▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012
Overview of Rating Scores
Importance – overall
Very high Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
High Public toilets
Facilities and services for youth
Library services
Moderately high Community services and facilities planning
Performing Arts Centre
Buildings for community activities and meetings
Importance – by age
Residents aged 60+ rated the importance of ‘library services’ significantly higher than did all other age
groups.
Importance – by gender
Females rated the importance of the ‘Performing Arts Centre’ and ‘public toilets’ significantly higher.
Importance – compared to 2012
Compared to the result from 2012, residents consider the importance of ‘community services and facilities
planning’ to be significantly higher.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 35
Community
Overview of Rating Scores
Satisfaction – overall
Very high Library services
Performing Arts Centre
Moderately high Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
Moderate Buildings for community activities and meetings
Community services and facilities planning
Moderately low Facilities and services for youth
Public toilets
Satisfaction – by age
Residents aged 60+ were more satisfied with the provision of ‘library services’ than were all other age groups.
Residents aged 30-44 were less satisfied with ‘public toilets’ than were all other age groups.
Satisfaction – by gender
There were no significant differences between the genders.
Satisfaction – compared to 2012
There has been a significant increase in satisfaction with ‘community services and facilities planning’
compared to the result from 2012.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 36
Community
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LOW
ER
SA
TISFA
CTI
ON
HIG
HER
SA
TISFA
CTIO
N
Nil
IMPROVE
Public toiletsFacilities and services for youth
NICHE
Community services and facilities planningBuildings for community activities and meetings
Library servicesPerforming Arts Centre
COMMUNITY
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
MAINTAIN
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 37
Economy
Services and facilities explored included:
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Encouraging business and industry
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 6% of overall satisfaction, based on the
regression analysis.
Economy – Contributes To Almost 6%
Of Overall Satisfaction With Council
2.7%
3.2%
5.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0%
Encouraging business and industry
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Nett - Economy
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 38
Economy
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.40 4.32
4.15 4.08
Mean ratings
2014 2012
3.07 3.02
3.42▲ 3.25
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
44%
60%
36%
25%
13%
10%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Encouraging business and industry
Importance
Very important Important Somewhat important
Base: n = 401
14%
9%
36%
24%
32%
39%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Encouraging business and industry
Satisfaction
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Base: n = 327-347
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 39
Economy
Performance Gap Year on year
shift 2014 2012
Encouraging business and industry 1.34 1.30 -0.04
Presentation of the CBD main streets 0.72 0.87 +0.15
▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012
Overview of Rating Scores
Importance – overall
Very high Encouraging business and industry
High Presentation of the CBD main streets
Importance – by age
There were no significant differences between the ages.
Importance – by gender
Females rated the importance of ‘presentation of the CBD main streets significantly higher.
Importance – compared to 2012
There were no significant differences compared to 2012.
Satisfaction – overall
Moderate Presentation of the CBD main streets
Encouraging business and industry
Satisfaction – by age
There were no significant differences between the ages.
Satisfaction – by gender
There were no significant differences between the genders.
Satisfaction – compared to 2012
There were no significant differences compared to 2012.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 40
Economy
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LOW
ER
SA
TISFA
CTI
ON
HIG
HER
SA
TISFA
CTIO
N
Encouraging business and industry
IMPROVE
Nil
NICHE
Presentation of the CBD mainstreets
COMMUNITY
Nil
MAINTAIN
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to improve resident satisfaction with:
Encouraging business and industry
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 41
Environment
Services and facilities explored included:
Parks and recreation areas
Waste collection and disposal
Recycling and waste reduction
Maintaining open space and bushland
Environmental protection
Sporting fields and buildings
Managing residential development
Swimming pools
Noxious weed control
Cemetery management
Heritage conservation
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for over 25% of overall satisfaction, based on the
regression analysis.
Environment – Contributes Over 25%
of Overall Satisfaction with Council
1.1%
1.4%
1.4%
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.6%
2.7%
2.9%
3.6%
3.7%
25.5%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0%
Noxious weed control
Swimming pools
Parks and recreation areas
Sporting fields and buildings
Recycling and waste reduction
Maintaining open space and bushland
Heritage conservation
Environmental protection
Managing residential development
Waste collection and disposal
Cemetery management
Nett - Environment
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 42
Environment
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
Importance
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.85▲ 4.41
4.57 4.57
4.53 4.58
4.37 4.36
4.34 4.32
4.27 4.27
4.24 4.20
4.17 4.12
4.16 4.18
4.15 4.14
4.13 4.04
Satisfaction
Mean ratings
2014 2012
3.26 3.27
3.76 3.68
3.72 3.65
3.46 3.37
3.24 3.16
3.67▲ 3.42
3.07 2.94
3.50 3.51
3.17▲ 2.95
3.62▲ 3.45
3.47 3.36
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
44%
49%
50%
51%
48%
51%
56%
57%
64%
67%
58%
32%
29%
26%
27%
34%
31%
24%
28%
27%
26%
30%
18%
15%
15%
13%
14%
13%
18%
11%
6%
6%
9%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Heritage conservation
Cemetery management
Noxious weed control
Swimming pools
Managing residential development
Sporting fields and buildings
Environmental protection
Maintaining open space and bushland
Recycling and waste reduction
Waste collection and disposal
Parks and recreation areas
Very important Important Somewhat important
Base: n = 401
13%
22%
11%
23%
10%
21%
12%
20%
29%
30%
15%
38%
39%
28%
33%
25%
37%
31%
30%
36%
36%
28%
36%
23%
38%
22%
37%
31%
35%
30%
19%
18%
32%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Heritage conservation
Cemetery management
Noxious weed control
Swimming pools
Managing residential development
Sporting fields and buildings
Environmental protection
Maintaining open space and bushland
Recycling and waste reduction
Waste collection and disposal
Parks and recreation areas
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Base: n = 303-379
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 43
Environment
Performance Gap Year on year
shift 2014 2012
Parks and recreation areas 1.59 1.12 -0.47▼
Managing residential development 1.17 1.29 +0.12
Environmental protection 1.10 1.15 +0.05
Noxious weed control 0.99 1.18 +0.19
Maintaining open space and bushland 0.91 1.02 +0.11
Waste collection and disposal 0.81 0.90 +0.09
Recycling and waste reduction 0.81 0.92 +0.11
Swimming pools 0.67 0.64 -0.03
Heritage conservation 0.66 0.67 +0.01
Sporting fields and buildings 0.60 0.85 +0.25▲
Cemetery management 0.53 0.65 +0.12
▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012
Overview of Rating Scores
Importance – overall
Extremely high Parks and recreation areas
Waste collection and disposal
Recycling and waste reduction
Very high Maintaining open space and bushland
Environmental protection
Sporting fields and buildings
Managing residential development
High Swimming pools
Noxious weed control
Cemetery management
Heritage conservation
Importance – by age
There were no significant differences between the ages.
Importance – by gender
Females rated the importance of ‘environmental protection’, ‘cemetery management’ and ‘recycling and
waste reduction’ higher than did males.
Importance – compared to 2012
Residents rated the importance of ‘parks and recreation areas’ higher than they did in 2012.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 44
Environment
Satisfaction – overall
Moderately high Waste collection and disposal
Recycling and waste reduction
Sporting fields and buildings
Cemetery management
Moderate Swimming pools
Heritage conservation
Maintaining open space and bushland
Parks and recreation areas
Environmental protection
Noxious weed control
Managing residential development
Satisfaction – by age
There were no significant differences between the ages.
Satisfaction – by gender
There were no significant differences between the genders.
Satisfaction – compared to 2012
Resident satisfaction with ‘sporting fields and buildings’, ‘cemetery management’ and ‘noxious weed
control’ has increased since 2012.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 45
Environment
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LOW
ER
SA
TISFA
CTI
ON
HIG
HER
SA
TISFA
CTIO
N
Nil
IMPROVE
Managing residential developmentNoxious weed control
NICHE
Swimming poolsHeritage conservation
Cemetery management
COMMUNITY
Parks and recreation areasEnvironmental protection
Maintaining open space and bushlandRecycling and waste reductionWaste collection and disposalSporting fields and buildings
MAINTAIN
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:
Parks and recreation areas
Environmental protection
Maintaining open space and bushland
Recycling and waste reduction
Waste collection and disposal
Sporting fields and buildings
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 46
Infrastructure
Services and facilities explored included:
Developing and maintaining the road network
Kerb and guttering
Footpaths
Regulating traffic flow
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Cycleways
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 19% of overall satisfaction, based on the
regression analysis.
Infrastructure – Contributes To Almost 19%
Of Overall Satisfaction With Council
1.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.4%
2.7%
3.0%
5.3%
18.9%
0.0 0.2 0.4
Cycleways
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Regulating traffic flow
Footpaths
Kerb and guttering
Developing and maintaining the road network
Nett - Infrastructure
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 47
Infrastructure
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
Importance
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.71 4.78
4.45 4.43
4.36 4.35
4.36 4.33
4.18 4.16
4.17 4.06
3.86 3.84
Satisfaction
Mean ratings
2014 2012
2.14▲ 1.62
2.96▲ 2.59
3.26▲ 2.82
3.17▲ 2.80
2.49 2.48
2.41 2.39
2.81▲ 2.49
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
41%
55%
54%
56%
57%
59%
82%
27%
21%
24%
28%
27%
29%
13%
17%
15%
13%
13%
12%
9%
2%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Cycleways
Kerb and guttering
Footpaths
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Regulating traffic flow
Developing and maintaining the road
network
Very important Important Somewhat important
Base: n = 401
9%
7%
8%
13%
13%
11%
6%
21%
16%
15%
32%
36%
21%
8%
28%
24%
22%
29%
27%
35%
19%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Cycleways
Kerb and guttering
Footpaths
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Regulating traffic flow
Developing and maintaining the road
network
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Base: n = 282-380
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 48
Infrastructure
Performance Gap Year on year
shift 2014 2012
Developing and maintaining the road network 2.57 3.16 +0.59▲
Kerb and guttering 1.76 1.67 -0.09
Footpaths 1.69 1.68 -0.01
Regulating traffic flow 1.49 1.84 +0.35▲
Stormwater drainage 1.19 1.50 +0.31▲
Flood prevention 1.10 1.49 +0.39▲
Cycleways 1.05 1.35 +0.30▲
▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012
Overview of Rating Scores
Importance – overall
Extremely high Developing and maintaining the road network
Very high Regulating traffic flow
Flood prevention
Stormwater drainage
High Footpaths
Kerb and guttering
Moderately high Cycleways
Importance – by age
There were no significant differences between the age groups.
Importance – by gender
Females indicated higher levels of importance for ‘footpaths’.
Importance – compared to 2012
There were no significant differences from 2012.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 49
Infrastructure
Overview of Rating Scores
Satisfaction – overall
Moderate Flood prevention
Stormwater drainage
Moderately low Regulating traffic flow
Cycleways
Low Footpaths
Kerb and guttering
Developing and maintaining the road network
Satisfaction – by age
There were no significant differences between the age groups.
Satisfaction – by gender
There were no significant differences between the genders.
Satisfaction – compared to 2012
Compared to 2012, satisfaction has increased for 5 of the 7 services/facilities, ‘flood prevention’, ‘stormwater
drainage’, ‘regulating traffic flow’, ‘cycleways’, and ‘developing and maintaining the road network’.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 50
Infrastructure
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LOW
ER
SA
TISFA
CTI
ON
HIG
HER
SA
TISFA
CTIO
N
Developing and maintaining the road networkRegulating traffic flowStormwater drainage
IMPROVE
Kerb and gutteringFootpathsCycleways
NICHE
Nil
COMMUNITY
Flood prevention
MAINTAIN
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to improve resident satisfaction with:
Developing and maintaining the road network
Regulating traffic flow
Stormwater drainage
Cessnock Council also needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:
Flood prevention
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 51
Governance
Services and facilities explored included:
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Council’s response to community needs
Community involvement in Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)
Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 36% of overall satisfaction, based on the
regression analysis.
Governance – Contributes to Almost 36% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
4.9%
5.1%
7.8%
8.1%
9.8%
35.7%
0.0% 9.0% 18.0% 27.0% 36.0%
Information supplied to residents
about Council activities
The way Council employees deal
with the public
Council’s response to community
needs
Community involvement in
Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Nett - Governance
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 52
Governance
Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.
Importance
Mean ratings
2014 2012
4.46 4.41
4.43 4.40
4.38 4.36
4.33 4.27
4.30 4.26
Satisfaction
Mean ratings
2014 2012
2.80▲ 2.60
2.96▲ 2.77
3.27▲ 3.02
2.87▲ 2.69
3.01 2.84
Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)
53%
56%
58%
63%
62%
31%
28%
25%
22%
25%
12%
11%
13%
12%
9%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Information supplied to residents about
Council activities
Community involvement in Council
decision making
The way Council employees deal with the
public
Long term planning and vision
Council’s response to community needs
Very important Important Somewhat important
Base: n = 401
11%
7%
15%
10%
5%
26%
20%
33%
19%
17%
26%
36%
26%
37%
41%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Information supplied to residents about
Council activities
Community involvement in Council
decision making
The way Council employees deal with the
public
Long term planning and vision
Council’s response to community needs
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Base: n = 339-356
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 53
Governance
Performance Gap Year on year
shift 2014 2012
Council’s response to community needs 1.66 1.83 +0.17
Long term planning and vision 1.47 1.59 +0.12
Community involvement in Council decision making 1.46 1.57 +0.11
Information supplied to residents about Council activities 1.29 1.43 +0.14
The way Council employees deal with the public 1.11 1.36 +0.25▲
▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012
Overview of Rating Scores
Importance – overall
Very high Council’s response to community needs
Long term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision making
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Importance – by age
There were no significant differences by age.
Importance – by gender
There were no significant differences by gender.
Importance – compared to 2012
There were no significant differences compared to 2012.
Satisfaction – overall
Moderate The way Council employees deal with the public
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
Long term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision making
Council’s response to community needs
Satisfaction – by age
There were no significant differences by age.
Satisfaction – by gender
There were no significant differences by gender.
Satisfaction – compared to 2012
Satisfaction with 4 of the 5 services/facilities has increased since 2012, ‘the way Council employees deal with
the public’, ‘long term planning and vision’, ‘community involvement in Council decision making’ and
‘Council’s response to community needs’.
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 54
Governance
Quadrant Analysis
HIGHER IMPORTANCE
LOWER IMPORTANCE
LOW
ER
SA
TISFA
CTI
ON
HIG
HER
SA
TISFA
CTIO
N
Council’s response to community needsLong term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision makingInformation supplied to residents about Council
activities
IMPROVE
Nil
NICHE
Nil
COMMUNITY
The way Council employees deal with the public
MAINTAIN
Recommendations
Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to improve resident satisfaction with:
Council’s response to community needs
Long term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision making
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
Cessnock Council also needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:
The way Council employees deal with the public
Overall Satisfaction with Council
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 55
Summary
80% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance. This is the same
result as our NSW Regional Benchmark, and similar to the All of NSW Benchmark. There has been a
significant increase in overall satisfaction since 2012, when residents were disheartened with the in-fighting
between Councillors and the lack of interest they believed Council exhibited towards them.
Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two
issues but across all responsibility areas?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27
Overall
2014
Overall
2012
Overall
2009
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22▲ 2.43 3.23
NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW Cessnock City
Council 2014
Mean ratings 3.45 3.22 3.31 3.22
Scale: 1= not at all satisfied, 5= very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of satisfaction (by group)
Base: n= 401
Q3c. (If not very satisfied/not at all satisfied with Council’s performance overall). What is your main reason for feeling
that way?
%
Poor response to residents' issues and enquiries 41%
Efficiency and accountability are poor 32%
Unacceptable condition of local roads 22%
Failure to encourage growth throughout the local economy 11%
Infrastructure improvements are required 10%
Experience of poor service provision 8%
Lack of knowledge of residents' needs 4%
Inability to reduce crime rate 1%
6%
14%
39%
35%
6%
0% 20% 40%
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Mean rating – 3.22
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 56
Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance
Overview
Using regression analysis, we identified the variables that have the greatest influence on driving positive
overall satisfaction with Council.
* Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.4%
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.9%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
7.8%
8.1%
9.8%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Performing Arts Centre
Cycleways
Public toilets
Noxious weed control
Swimming pools
Parks and recreation areas
Library services
Buildings for community activities and meetings
Sporting fields and buildings
Recycling and waste reduction
Maintaining open space and bushland
Stormwater drainage
Flood prevention
Regulating traffic flow
Community services and facilities planning
Facilities and services for youth
Heritage conservation
Encouraging business and industry
Footpaths
Environmental protection
Managing residential development
Kerb and guttering
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Inspection of the health and hygiene*
Waste collection and disposal
Cemetery management
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Developing and maintaining the road network
Council’s response to community needs
Community involvement in Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 57
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
These top 12 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that
the remaining 20 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s
satisfaction with Cessnock Council performance. Therefore, whilst all 32 service/facility areas are important,
only a minority of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.
These 12 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Cessnock Council will
improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of
influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.
Three broad areas emerge in the above data:
Community engagement: ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’ (8.1%), ‘Council’s
response to community needs’ (7.8%), ‘The way Council employees deal with the public’ (5.1%),
and ‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ (4.9%).
Planning: ‘Long term planning and vision’ (9.8%) and ‘Managing residential development’ (2.9%)
Roads: ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ (5.3%), ‘Kerb and guttering’ (3%).
Our new Advanced Shapley Analysis (see overleaf) explores these key drivers in more detail, identifying
whether each attribute is a driver of satisfaction, driver of dissatisfaction, or both.
2.9%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
7.8%
8.1%
9.8%
0% 5% 10%
Managing residential development
Kerb and guttering
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops
Waste collection and disposal
Cemetery management
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
The way Council employees deal with the public
Developing and maintaining the road network
Council’s response to community needs
Community involvement in Council decision making
Long term planning and vision
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 58
Importance of, & Satisfaction with,
Council Services & Facilities
Advanced Shapley Outcomes
The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall
satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion
of the residents.
The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding the transition towards
satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will
positively transition residents who are currently ‘not at all satisfied’ towards being at least ‘somewhat
satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance.
The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If we
can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively
transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat satisfied’ towards being more satisfied with
Council’s overall performance.
Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers
Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community
-6.0%
-5.2%
-4.7%
-4.7%
-3.5%
-1.5%
-1.7%
-0.5%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.4%
-1.9%
3.8%
2.9%
3.1%
0.6%
1.6%
3.4%
2.1%
3.2%
0.4%
1.2%
1.6%
0.9%
-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Long term planning and vision
Community involvement in Council decision making
Council’s response to community needs
Developing and maintaining the road network
The way Council employees deal with the public
Information supplied to residents about Council activities
Cemetery management
Waste collection and disposal
Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway
shops
Presentation of the CBD main streets
Kerb and guttering
Managing residential development
Optimisers(25%)
Barriers(36%)
An attribute such as ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ has the ability to cause overall
dissatisfaction with Council, but is less likely to drive overall satisfaction. In contrast an attribute such as
‘information supplied to residents about Council activities’, won’t necessarily generate overall
dissatisfaction with Council, but it is capable of driving satisfaction with Council. An attribute such as ‘Kerb
and guttering’ can drive both overall satisfaction and overall dissatisfaction with Council.
Section D Council’s Financial
Sustainability
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 60
Support for Financial Sustainability from Council
Summary
Residents are supportive of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable, with 95% being at least
‘somewhat supportive’.
No significant differences were observed by age or gender.
Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs, increasing
revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations?
Overall 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Mean ratings 4.04 4.17 4.13 3.99 3.93 4.12 3.97
Base: n=401
Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Q4b. Why do you say that?
Supportive/Very supportive N=377
Council has the responsibility to be financially sustainable 38%
Beneficial for the community - maintaining services/infrastructure, preventing rate increases, improving
Council transparency 26%
Initiative will ensure future financial health 8%
Community have the responsibility to support Council's financial management 6%
Approve of Council’s performance in general 1%
Somewhat supportive
Not convinced that savings will be implemented as proposed 7%
Council's financial management should improve to make such measures unnecessary 6%
Quality of services needs to be maintained alongside cost reductions 5%
Details of initiative have not been communicated effectively enough to form an opinion 2%
Greater community consultation is required before implementation 1%
Not very/Not at all supportive
Not convinced that savings will be implemented as proposed 3%
Council's financial management should improve to make such measures unnecessary 2%
Details of proposal are not sufficiently clear 1%
2%
3%
18%
42%
35%
0% 25% 50%
Not at all supportive
Not very supportive
Somewhat supportive
Supportive
Very supportive
Mean rating – 4.04
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 61
Financial Sustainability Initiative
Summary
The majority of residents (56%) believe it very important for Council to examine a range of options identified
in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to consideration of a future special rates levy. None of the
residents rated it as unimportant.
There were no significant differences within the demographics.
Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range of
options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates levy?
Overall 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Mean ratings 4.46 4.36 4.49 4.51 4.45 4.42 4.49
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important
Base: n=401
0%
0%
10%
34%
56%
0% 30% 60%
Not at all important
Not very important
Somewhat important
Important
Very important
Mean rating – 4.46
Section E Council communication
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 62
Satisfaction with Level of Communication
Summary
Q6a. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?
Overall
2014
Overall
2012
Overall
2009 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22 2.95 3.28 3.13 3.07 3.28 3.33 3.20 3.23
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
Base: n=401
Q6b. (If not very satisfied/not at all satisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?
N=86
Greater transparency and consultation with the community 52%
Increasing paper mail communication - letterbox drops, newsletters, leaflets, flyers 35%
Increasing online communication - social media presence, email communication, website navigation 21%
Providing more information through local newspapers 13%
More frequent and thorough communication provision 6%
Better responsiveness to enquiries 5%
Look into various alternative methods of communication 1%
6%
17%
33%
37%
7%
0% 20% 40%
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Mean rating – 3.22
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 63
Means of Sourcing Information about Council
Summary
The ‘Cessnock Advertiser’ has the highest recall (82%), followed by ‘word of mouth’ (75%) and ‘Council
brochures and displays’ (63%). Since 2009 there has been a noticeable increase in terms of attaining
information from ‘Council brochures and displays’ and ‘Council’s website’.
Those aged 18-29 were more likely than the other age groups to be informed by the ‘Maitland Mercury’,
whilst those aged 60+ were less likely to become aware by ‘Council’s website’ and ‘Council’s Facebook
Page’.
Q7. In which of the following ways have you been kept informed about Council activities and services?
Base: 2014 n=401, 2012 n=400, 2009 n=500
10%
4%
17%
19%
18%
18%
17%
37%
39%
69%
88%
1%
8%
9%
11%
7%
9%
24%
19%
29%
17%
31%
49%
73%
86%
1%
9%
10%
14%
16%
18%
23%
24%
28%
30%
32%
63%
75%
82%
0% 45% 90%
Council’s Twitter messages
Council meetings/briefings
Our Own News Wollombi
Maitland Mercury
Council’s Facebook page
Branxton/Greta Vineyards News
Radio
Council staff
Television
Council’s website
Newcastle Herald
Council brochures and displays
Word of mouth
Cessnock Advertiser
2014 2012 2009
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 64
Information Sources – by Region
Summary
The ‘Cessnock Advertiser’ is the dominant information source in ‘Central Cessnock & surrounds’, ‘Kurri Kurri &
surrounds’, and ‘Rural West’, however, in ‘Greta-Branxton & surrounds’ the ‘Branxton/Greta Vineyards news’
is the dominant information source.
Although the differences are not significant, there is some indication in the data that the ‘Rural West’
residents are less likely than other residents to rely on ‘Council brochures and displays’, perhaps because of
their remoteness – but they are equally likely to use ‘Council’s website’.
Q7. In which of the following ways have you been kept informed about Council activities and services?
Base: 2014 n=401
93%
74%
67%
37%
32%
31%
28%
23%
9%
21%
11%
8%
10%
2%
82%
79%
66%
30%
28%
24%
21%
23%
6%
14%
15%
11%
5%
0%
46%
72%
56%
21%
22%
24%
18%
23%
79%
7%
29%
10%
8%
0%
78%
63%
41%
29%
36%
27%
28%
23%
20%
11%
2%
19%
13%
3%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Cessnock Advertiser
Word of mouth
Council brochures and displays
Newcastle Herald
Council's website
Television
Council staff
Radio
Branxton/Greta Vineyards News
Council's Facebook page
Maitland Mercury
Our Own News Wollombi
Council meetings/briefings
Council Twitter messages
Central Cessnock & Surrounds (N=187)
Kurri Kurri & Surrounds (N=128)
Greta-Branxton & Surrounds (N=53)
Rural West (N=33)
Section E Demographics
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 65
Demographics
Q7. Please stop me when I read out your age group.
%
18-29 21%
30-44 24%
45-59 24%
60+ 31%
Q8. Which town or area do you live in?
%
Cessnock 28%
Kurri Kurri 11%
Weston 7%
Bellbird (incl. heights) 5%
Branxton 5%
Paxton 4%
Abermain 4%
Pelaw Main 4%
Greta 3%
Nulkaba 3%
North Rothbury 3%
Heddon Greta 3%
Aberdare 2%
Kearsley 2%
Millfield 2%
Mulbring 2%
Cessnock West 2%
Cessnock East 2%
East Branxton 2%
Ellalong 1%
Kitchener 1%
Cessnock South 1%
Stanford Merthyr 1%
Rothbury 1%
Bucketty 1%
Mount Vincent 1%
Demographics
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 66
Q9. How long have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area?
%
6 months – 2 years 1%
3 – 5 years 7%
6 – 10 years 13%
11 – 20 years 15%
More than 20 years 64%
Q10. Gender.
%
Male 49%
Female 51%
Appendix A Data and Correlation Tables
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding
Living in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 67
Quality of Life
Overall
2014
Overall
2012
Overall
2009 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female
Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
%
Strongly agree 22%
Agree 45%
Neither agree nor disagree 25%
Disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 2%
Base 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 68
Community
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
There is a strong community
spirit in the Cessnock area 3.27 3.36 3.63 3.76 3.45 3.60 3.53
If there was a problem in my
community, people would
band together to solve it
3.21 3.42 3.62 3.72 3.45 3.58 3.52
Facilities and services for
children are adequate 3.17 2.48▼ 2.79 3.00 2.86 2.86 2.86
Facilities and services for youth
are adequate 2.83 2.34 2.56 2.66 2.68 2.52 2.59
Facilities and services for the
aged are adequate 3.40▲ 2.83 2.85 2.98 3.02 2.98 3.00
It is a safe place to live 3.21 2.98 3.32 3.46 3.24 3.27 3.26
Arts, entertainment and culture
are well catered for 3.29 3.20 3.26 3.37 3.23 3.34 3.28
Quality housing is both
available and affordable 3.17 3.16 3.17 3.31 3.20 3.22 3.21
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
There is a strong community spirit in
the Cessnock area 5% 8% 38% 27% 22% 100% 401
If there was a problem in my
community, people would
band together to solve it
5% 15% 26% 33% 21% 100% 401
Arts, entertainment and culture
are well catered for 7% 16% 34% 26% 16% 100% 401
It is a safe place to live 6% 17% 34% 31% 12% 100% 401
Quality housing is both available
and affordable 7% 13% 41% 30% 9% 100% 401
Facilities and services for the aged
are adequate 10% 19% 39% 24% 8% 100% 401
Facilities and services for children
are adequate 12% 24% 35% 21% 7% 100% 401
Facilities and services for youth are
adequate 19% 27% 35% 14% 5% 100% 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 69
Economy
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
The vineyards play an important
role in the local economy 4.72 4.51 4.31 4.32 4.41 4.48 4.45
Conferences and events are
important for the area 4.19 4.42 4.41 4.12 4.29 4.26 4.28
Tourism is promoted well 4.05 3.83 3.99 4.06 4.00 3.97 3.99
High quality and
environmentally friendly
industries are encouraged
3.39 3.00 3.13 3.01 3.03 3.20 3.11
Education and training
opportunities are good 3.08 2.91 2.86 3.07 2.90 3.06 2.98
Industry and business
development is working well 3.28 2.51 2.81 2.79 2.68 2.98 2.83
There are enough employment
opportunities 2.29 2.18 2.12 2.09 2.11 2.20 2.16
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
The vineyards play an important
role in the local economy 1% 4% 7% 27% 62% 100% 401
Conferences and events are
important for the area 0% 4% 12% 36% 48% 100% 401
Tourism is promoted well 3% 7% 16% 39% 36% 100% 401
High quality and environmentally
friendly industries are
encouraged
11% 11% 41% 29% 8% 100% 401
Education and training
opportunities are good 10% 23% 34% 25% 8% 100% 401
Industry and business
development is working well 12% 27% 34% 21% 6% 100% 401
There are enough employment
opportunities 27% 44% 19% 7% 3% 100% 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 70
Environment
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
The area has an attractive
appearance 3.63 3.31 3.58 3.50 3.54 3.47 3.50
The natural environment is well
managed 3.52 3.05 3.27 3.23 3.19 3.32 3.26
Environmental issues are
handled well 3.16 3.03 2.98 3.00 3.02 3.05 3.03
The bushland that supports a
diversity of native plants
and animals is valuable
4.15 4.19 4.12 4.03 4.08 4.14 4.11
The area’s heritage is well
conserved 3.72 3.60 3.58 3.57 3.61 3.61 3.61
Development overall is well
planned and well
managed
3.11 2.57 2.76 2.97 2.70 2.99 2.85
Residential development is well
managed 3.24 2.59 2.87 3.07 2.84 3.05 2.94
There are enough good quality
open spaces 3.43 3.17 3.32 3.44 3.39 3.30 3.34
There is a wide range of
recreation and leisure
opportunities
2.79 2.70 3.13 3.22 3.02 2.94 2.98
Waste collection and disposal
are well managed 3.28 3.56 3.76 3.86 3.62 3.66 3.64
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
The bushland that supports a diversity
of native plants and animals is
valuable
2% 2% 20% 34% 42% 100% 401
Waste collection and disposal are well
managed 6% 10% 21% 38% 24% 100% 401
The area’s heritage is well conserved 3% 7% 31% 43% 16% 100% 401
The area has an attractive
appearance 5% 9% 32% 37% 17% 100% 401
There are enough good quality open
spaces 6% 19% 28% 30% 17% 100% 401
The natural environment is well
managed 8% 12% 40% 30% 11% 100% 401
Environmental issues are handled well 7% 19% 45% 20% 9% 100% 401
There is a wide range of recreation and
leisure opportunities 11% 22% 33% 25% 8% 100% 401
Residential development is well
managed 12% 21% 37% 21% 9% 100% 401
Development overall is well planned
and well managed 15% 22% 35% 20% 8% 100% 401
Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living
in Cessnock
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 71
Infrastructure
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
The road network is effective
and in good repair 2.04 1.72 1.87 2.00 1.90 1.92 1.91
There is enough public transport 3.01 2.54 2.61 2.73 2.65 2.78 2.71
Health facilities are sufficient 3.00 2.51 2.79 2.91 2.85 2.76 2.80
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
The road network is effective and in
good repair 43% 34% 16% 4% 3% 100% 401
There is enough public transport 23% 23% 25% 17% 12% 100% 401
Health facilities are sufficient 14% 26% 30% 23% 6% 100% 401
Governance
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
People volunteer and get
involved in their community 3.47 3.27 3.49 3.65 3.43 3.54 3.48
The opportunity exists for me to
be involved in making
decisions about my
community
3.36 3.01 3.15 3.11 3.24 3.06 3.15
Laws and regulations are
enforced consistently and
fairly
3.43 3.13 3.22 3.28 3.30 3.23 3.26
There is good co-operation
between all levels of
government in the area
2.98 2.59 2.63 2.79 2.61 2.88 2.74
There is a clear plan and
direction for the future 3.17 2.70 2.74 2.86 2.80 2.92 2.86
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
There is good co-operation
between all levels of
government in the area
16% 23% 36% 21% 4% 100% 401
There is a clear plan and direction
for the future 12% 19% 45% 18% 6% 100% 401
The opportunity exists for me to be
involved in making decisions
about my community
7% 18% 37% 28% 10% 100% 401
Laws and regulations are enforced
consistently and fairly 5% 16% 36% 31% 11% 100% 401
People volunteer and get involved
in their community 1% 9% 43% 34% 12% 100% 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 72
Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
A connected, safe and creative
community 3.29 2.99 3.30 3.42 3.24 3.29 3.26
A sustainable and prosperous
economy 3.25 2.77 3.04 3.00 2.91 3.10 3.01
A sustainable and healthy
environment 3.48 3.20 3.28 3.45 3.33 3.38 3.36
Accessible infrastructure,
services and facilities 3.48 2.89 3.01 3.09 3.18 3.03 3.10
Civic leadership and effective
governance 2.98 2.62 2.75 2.97 2.78 2.89 2.84
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree Total % Base
Civic leadership and effective
governance 13% 21% 41% 18% 7% 100% 401
A sustainable and prosperous
economy 6% 23% 42% 25% 5% 100% 401
Accessible infrastructure, services and
facilities 7% 23% 33% 27% 10% 100% 401
A connected, safe and creative
community 4% 12% 45% 32% 7% 100% 401
A sustainable and healthy environment 4% 11% 36% 42% 7% 100% 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 73
Importance/Satisfaction Community
Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Buildings for community
activities and meetings 3.61 3.65 3.69 3.67 3.55 3.76 3.66
Community services and
facilities planning 3.67 3.91 4.03 3.92 3.76 4.01 3.89
Facilities and services for youth 4.08 4.10 3.96 3.71 3.78 4.10 3.94
Inspection of the health and
hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops
4.21 4.39 4.44 4.31 4.20 4.47 4.34
Library services 3.87 3.68 3.87 4.18▲ 3.73 4.10 3.92
Performing Arts Centre 3.61 3.63 3.88 3.91 3.53 4.00▲ 3.77
Public toilets 4.20 4.08 4.32 4.24 3.96 4.45▲ 4.21
Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Buildings for community
activities and meetings 3.76 3.25 3.24 3.29 3.46 3.28 3.37
Community services and
facilities planning 3.74 2.95 3.05 3.51 3.27 3.31 3.29
Facilities and services for youth 2.98 2.74 2.89 3.21 2.95 2.96 2.96
Inspection of the health and
hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops
3.40 3.62 3.64 3.77 3.66 3.60 3.63
Library services 4.22 4.06 4.06 4.47▲ 4.17 4.29 4.24
Performing Arts Centre 4.20 4.30 4.24 4.20 4.25 4.22 4.23
Public toilets 2.83 2.34▼ 2.78 2.97 2.86 2.67 2.75
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 74
Community
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important Important
Very
important Total % Base
Buildings for community activities and
meetings 4% 8% 28% 38% 22% 100% 401
Community services and facilities
planning 2% 6% 23% 38% 30% 100% 401
Facilities and services for youth 5% 7% 17% 34% 38% 100% 401
Inspection of the health and hygiene
of local restaurants and takeaway
shops
1% 4% 10% 30% 54% 100% 401
Library services 4% 6% 20% 33% 37% 100% 401
Performing Arts Centre 6% 12% 15% 30% 36% 100% 401
Public toilets 3% 4% 15% 23% 54% 100% 401
Not at all
satisfied
Not very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Satisfied
Very
satisfied Total % Base
Buildings for community activities
and meetings 3% 16% 33% 38% 10% 100% 239
Community services and facilities
planning 3% 16% 43% 25% 13% 100% 287
Facilities and services for youth 13% 21% 34% 24% 9% 100% 285
Inspection of the health and
hygiene of local restaurants
and takeaway shops
3% 6% 34% 39% 18% 100% 341
Library services 0% 1% 13% 45% 41% 100% 292
Performing Arts Centre 2% 4% 10% 39% 45% 100% 278
Public toilets 17% 24% 35% 18% 7% 100% 323
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 75
Economy
Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Encouraging business and industry 4.29 4.52 4.42 4.38 4.32 4.48 4.40
Presentation of the CBD main streets 4.12 4.17 4.14 4.15 3.96 4.33▲ 4.15
Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Encouraging business and industry 3.31 2.82 2.91 3.22 2.90 3.22 3.07
Presentation of the CBD main streets 3.42 3.27 3.43 3.53 3.45 3.40 3.42
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important Important
Very
important Total % Base
Encouraging business and industry 2% 2% 10% 25% 60% 100% 401
Presentation of the CBD main streets 2% 4% 13% 36% 44% 100% 401
Not at all
satisfied
Not very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Satisfied
Very
satisfied Total % Base
Encouraging business and industry 7% 22% 39% 24% 9% 100% 347
Presentation of the CBD main streets 3% 16% 32% 36% 14% 100% 327
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 76
Environment
Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Cemetery management 4.08 3.91 4.29 4.27 3.91 4.38▲ 4.15
Environmental protection 4.37 4.41 4.30 4.29 4.19 4.49▲ 4.34
Heritage conservation 4.20 4.15 4.12 4.06 3.97 4.28 4.13
Maintaining open space and
bushland 4.40 4.37 4.35 4.38 4.25 4.49 4.37
Managing residential
development 4.14 4.27 4.30 4.23 4.14 4.33 4.24
Noxious weed control 3.80 4.05 4.39 4.33 4.03 4.29 4.16
Parks and recreation areas 4.83 4.87 4.89 4.82 4.84 4.87 4.85
Recycling and waste reduction 4.37 4.54 4.59 4.58 4.38 4.67▲ 4.53
Sporting fields and buildings 4.00 4.27 4.39 4.37 4.18 4.36 4.27
Swimming pools 4.00 4.27 4.19 4.21 4.02 4.32 4.17
Waste collection and disposal 4.41 4.53 4.65 4.66 4.48 4.67 4.57
Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Cemetery management 3.74 3.20 3.68 3.76 3.57 3.65 3.62
Environmental protection 3.57 3.01 3.14 3.27 3.14 3.33 3.24
Heritage conservation 3.67 3.44 3.23 3.55 3.44 3.50 3.47
Maintaining open space and
bushland 3.56 3.33 3.26 3.64 3.44 3.47 3.46
Managing residential
development 3.33 2.74 2.94 3.28 3.03 3.12 3.07
Noxious weed control 3.42 3.10 3.02 3.21 3.08 3.24 3.17
Parks and recreation areas 3.45 2.85 3.23 3.50 3.19 3.33 3.26
Recycling and waste reduction 3.65 3.49 3.77 3.89 3.72 3.72 3.72
Sporting fields and buildings 3.95 3.35 3.56 3.82 3.67 3.67 3.67
Swimming pools 3.86 3.24 3.41 3.55 3.57 3.44 3.50
Waste collection and disposal 3.44 3.66 3.82 3.99 3.78 3.75 3.76
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 77
Environment
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important Important
Very
important Total % Base
Cemetery management 4% 4% 15% 29% 49% 100% 401
Environmental protection 0% 2% 18% 24% 56% 100% 401
Heritage conservation 1% 5% 18% 32% 44% 100% 401
Maintaining open space and
bushland 0% 4% 11% 28% 57% 100% 401
Managing residential development 1% 4% 14% 34% 48% 100% 401
Noxious weed control 2% 6% 15% 26% 50% 100% 401
Parks and recreation areas 0% 3% 9% 30% 58% 100% 401
Recycling and waste reduction 0% 2% 6% 27% 64% 100% 401
Sporting fields and buildings 2% 3% 13% 31% 51% 100% 401
Swimming pools 4% 4% 13% 27% 51% 100% 401
Waste collection and disposal 1% 1% 6% 26% 67% 100% 401
Not at all
satisfied
Not very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Satisfied
Very
satisfied Total % Base
Cemetery management 5% 11% 23% 39% 22% 100% 312
Environmental protection 8% 14% 35% 31% 12% 100% 326
Heritage conservation 4% 9% 36% 38% 13% 100% 303
Maintaining open space and bushland 4% 16% 30% 30% 20% 100% 340
Managing residential development 7% 21% 37% 25% 10% 100% 331
Noxious weed control 10% 13% 38% 28% 11% 100% 317
Parks and recreation areas 8% 17% 32% 28% 15% 100% 357
Recycling and waste reduction 6% 11% 19% 36% 29% 100% 378
Sporting fields and buildings 2% 9% 31% 37% 21% 100% 338
Swimming pools 7% 15% 22% 33% 23% 100% 319
Waste collection and disposal 4% 12% 18% 36% 30% 100% 379
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 78
Infrastructure
Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Cycleways 3.65 3.91 4.07 3.81 3.68 4.04 3.86
Developing and maintaining
the road network 4.73 4.83 4.77 4.56 4.65 4.77 4.71
Flood prevention 4.31 4.17 4.50 4.43 4.22 4.49 4.36
Footpaths 4.00 4.10 4.39 4.21 3.97 4.39▲ 4.18
Kerb and guttering 3.99 4.22 4.31 4.17 4.07 4.27 4.17
Regulating traffic flow 4.46 4.35 4.55 4.45 4.37 4.53 4.45
Stormwater drainage 4.08 4.30 4.53 4.45 4.23 4.47 4.36
Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Cycleways 3.45 2.52 2.62 2.81 2.89 2.73 2.81
Developing and maintaining
the road network 2.35 1.80 2.01 2.39 2.03 2.25 2.14
Flood prevention 3.48 3.19 3.04 3.32 3.23 3.28 3.26
Footpaths 2.92 2.22 2.44 2.47 2.52 2.47 2.49
Kerb and guttering 2.44 2.10 2.40 2.63 2.44 2.38 2.41
Regulating traffic flow 3.12 2.85 2.78 3.07 2.86 3.05 2.96
Stormwater drainage 3.63 3.02 3.04 3.14 3.21 3.14 3.17
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important Important
Very
important Total % Base
Cycleways 7% 8% 17% 27% 41% 100% 401
Developing and maintaining the road
network 2% 2% 2% 13% 82% 100% 401
Flood prevention 2% 2% 12% 27% 57% 100% 401
Footpaths 3% 7% 13% 24% 54% 100% 401
Kerb and guttering 4% 5% 15% 21% 55% 100% 401
Regulating traffic flow 0% 2% 9% 29% 59% 100% 401
Stormwater drainage 1% 2% 13% 28% 56% 100% 401
Not at all
satisfied
Not very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Satisfied
Very
satisfied Total % Base
Cycleways 17% 24% 28% 21% 9% 100% 282
Developing and maintaining the road
network 37% 30% 19% 8% 6% 100% 380
Flood prevention 12% 12% 27% 36% 13% 100% 342
Footpaths 27% 28% 22% 15% 8% 100% 324
Kerb and guttering 36% 17% 24% 16% 7% 100% 314
Regulating traffic flow 13% 20% 35% 21% 11% 100% 359
Stormwater drainage 14% 13% 29% 32% 13% 100% 346
Importance/Satisfaction
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 79
Governance
Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Community involvement in
Council decision making 4.32 4.32 4.46 4.26 4.23 4.43 4.33
Council’s response to
community needs 4.45 4.44 4.53 4.43 4.37 4.55 4.46
Information supplied to
residents about Council
activities
4.37 4.20 4.41 4.25 4.20 4.40 4.30
Long term planning and vision 4.49 4.31 4.54 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.43
The way Council employees
deal with the public 4.34 4.31 4.46 4.41 4.23 4.53 4.38
Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Community involvement in
Council decision making 2.86 2.74 2.82 3.03 2.82 2.92 2.87
Council’s response to
community needs 2.73 2.54 2.84 3.01 2.70 2.89 2.80
Information supplied to
residents about Council
activities
2.91 2.82 2.94 3.29 3.06 2.97 3.01
Long term planning and vision 3.14 2.78 2.74 3.15 2.88 3.03 2.96
The way Council employees
deal with the public 3.08 2.98 3.33 3.54 3.28 3.27 3.27
Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied
▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)
Not at all
important
Not very
important
Somewhat
important Important
Very
important Total % Base
Community involvement in Council
decision making 3% 2% 11% 28% 56% 100% 401
Council’s response to community
needs 1% 2% 9% 25% 62% 100% 401
Information supplied to residents
about Council activities 2% 3% 12% 31% 53% 100% 401
Long term planning and vision 1% 2% 12% 22% 63% 100% 401
The way Council employees deal with
the public 0% 3% 13% 25% 58% 100% 401
Not at all
satisfied
Not very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Satisfied
Very
satisfied Total % Base
Community involvement in
Council decision making 10% 27% 36% 20% 7% 100% 344
Council’s response to community
needs 11% 26% 41% 17% 5% 100% 356
Information supplied to residents
about Council activities 12% 24% 26% 26% 11% 100% 339
Long term planning and vision 9% 25% 37% 19% 10% 100% 341
The way Council employees deal
with the public 9% 17% 26% 33% 15% 100% 346
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 80
Overall Satisfaction with Council
Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two
issues but across all responsibility areas?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27 3.22
Scale: 1= not at all satisfied, 5= very satisfied
%
Very satisfied 6%
Satisfied 35%
Somewhat satisfied 39%
Not very satisfied 14%
Not at all satisfied 6%
Base 401
Support for Financial Sustainability from Council
Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs, increasing
revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Mean ratings 4.17 4.13 3.99 3.93 4.12 3.97 4.04
Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive
%
Very supportive 35%
Supportive 42%
Somewhat supportive 18%
Not very supportive 3%
Not at all supportive 2%
Base 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 81
Financial Sustainability Initiative
Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range of
options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates levy?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Importance mean ratings 4.36 4.49 4.51 4.45 4.42 4.49 4.46
%
Very important 56%
Important 34%
Somewhat important 10%
Not very important 0%
Not at all important 0%
Base 401
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important
Satisfaction with Level of Communication
Q6a. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Satisfaction mean ratings 3.13 3.07 3.28 3.33 3.20 3.23 3.22
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
%
Very satisfied 7%
Satisfied 37%
Somewhat satisfied 33%
Not very satisfied 17%
Not at all satisfied 6%
Base 401
Cessnock City Council
Community Research
December 2014 Page | 82
Means of Sourcing Information about Council
Q7. In which of the following ways have you been kept informed about Council activities and services?
18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall
Cessnock Advertiser 69% 80% 88% 87% 86% 79% 82%
Word of mouth 72% 85% 76% 67% 77% 73% 75%
Council brochures and displays 63% 61% 68% 61% 61% 65% 63%
Newcastle Herald 48% 20% 31% 32% 37% 28% 32%
Council’s website 45% 42% 30% 10%▼ 34% 25% 30%
Television 43% 29% 19% 23% 30% 25% 28%
Council staff 23% 21% 33% 22% 31% 18% 24%
Radio 29% 29% 15% 20% 25% 21% 23%
Branxton/Greta Vineyards News 21% 19% 21% 12% 19% 17% 18%
Council’s Facebook page 27% 23% 10% 7%▼ 16% 16% 16%
Maitland Mercury 32%▲ 10% 11% 8% 18% 10% 14%
Our Own News Wollombi 15% 10% 13% 6% 15% 6% 10%
Council meetings/briefings 7% 11% 8% 9% 12% 5% 9%
Council’s Twitter messages 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
▼▲= significantly lower/higher level (by group)
Appendix B Questionnaire
Appendix B Questionnaire
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 1
November 2014
Cessnock City Council
Community Survey 2014
Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening
My name is __________ and I am calling on behalf of Cessnock City Council from a research company
called Micromex. We are conducting a survey about the services provided by Council and what Council's
priorities should be in the future.
The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete and we would like to interview the person in your
household over 18 who had the most recent birthday. Would you please be able to assist?
(If answer is YES)
Is your household in the Cessnock City Council area? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]
Have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area for longer than 6 months? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]
Please confirm that you do not work for Cessnock City Council or a market research company. [IF SO
TERMINATE INTERVIEW]
Are you over the age of 18? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]
Great, I just have to inform you that my supervisor may monitor this call for quality control purposes.
Part A - The Cessnock City Council area as a place to live
Q1. In this section we would like your views on the Cessnock City Council Area as a place to live. Our
desire is to gauge your views on the broader attributes of the Cessnock community, although many
of these issues are not the responsibility of Council. I am going to read out a list of statements about
the Cessnock City Council area and would like you to rate your agreement, or disagreement, with
each of these statements. Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is
strongly agree:
Agreement
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
Community
There is a strong community spirit in the Cessnock area O O O O O
If there was a problem in my community, people would
band together to solve it O O O O O
Facilities and services for children are adequate O O O O O
Facilities and services for youth are adequate O O O O O
Facilities and services for the aged are adequate O O O O O
It is a safe place to live O O O O O
Arts, entertainment and culture are well catered for O O O O O
Quality housing is both available and affordable O O O O O
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 2
November 2014
Agreement
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
Economy
Industry and business development is working well O O O O O
There are enough employment opportunities O O O O O
Education and training opportunities are good O O O O O
High quality and environmentally friendly industries
are encouraged O O O O O
Tourism is promoted well O O O O O
The vineyards play an important role in the local
economy O O O O O
Conferences and events are important for the area O O O O O
Environment
The area has an attractive appearance O O O O O
The natural environment is well managed O O O O O
Environmental issues are handled well O O O O O
The bushland that supports a diversity of
native plants and animals is valuable O O O O O
The area’s heritage is well conserved O O O O O
Development overall is well planned and well
managed O O O O O
Residential development is well managed O O O O O
There are enough good quality open spaces O O O O O
There is a wide range of recreation and leisure
opportunities O O O O O
Waste collection and disposal are well managed O O O O O
Infrastructure
There is enough public transport O O O O O
The road network is effective and in good repair O O O O O
Health facilities are sufficient O O O O O
Governance
People volunteer and get involved in their community O O O O O
The opportunity exists for me to be involved in making
decisions about my community O O O O O
Laws and regulations are enforced consistently and fairly O O O O O
There is good co-operation between all levels of
government in the area O O O O O
There is a clear plan and direction for the future O O O O O
Overall
The area offers a good quality of life O O O O O
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 3
November 2014
Part B - Priority issues within the Cessnock City Council area
Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023,
how well do you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?
Agreement
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
A connected, safe and creative community O O O O O
A sustainable and prosperous economy O O O O O
A sustainable and healthy environment O O O O O
Accessible infrastructure, services and facilities O O O O O
Civic leadership and effective governance O O O O O
Q2b. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue for you and your family?
…………………………………………………………………
Q2c. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the town or village where you live?
…………………………………………………………………
Q2d. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the Cessnock City Council area?
…………………………………………………………………
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 4
November 2014
Part C - Council services and facilities
Q3a. In the next question I am going to read out a list of Council provided services and facilities. In the
first part could you please indicate that which best describes your opinion of the importance of the
following services/facilities to you, and in the second part, your level of satisfaction with the
performance of Cessnock City Council’s provision of that service. The scale is from 1 to 5 where 1 =
low importance and low satisfaction and where 5 = high importance and high satisfaction.
ONLY RATE SATISFACTION IF IMPORTANCE IS 4 OR 5
Importance Satisfaction
Low High Low High
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Facilities and services for youth O O O O O O O O O O
Buildings for community activities
and meetings O O O O O O O O O O
Community services and facilities planning O O O O O O O O O O
Library services O O O O O O O O O O
Inspection of the health and hygiene
of local restaurants and takeaway shops O O O O O O O O O O
Performing Arts Centre O O O O O O O O O O
Presentation of the CBD main streets O O O O O O O O O O
Encouraging business and industry O O O O O O O O O O
Environmental protection O O O O O O O O O O
Heritage conservation O O O O O O O O O O
Maintaining open space and bushland O O O O O O O O O O
Noxious weed control O O O O O O O O O O
Managing residential development O O O O O O O O O O
Parks and recreation areas O O O O O O O O O O
Sporting fields and buildings O O O O O O O O O O
Swimming pools O O O O O O O O O O
Cemetery management O O O O O O O O O O
Public toilets O O O O O O O O O O
Developing and maintaining the road
network O O O O O O O O O O
Regulating traffic flow O O O O O O O O O O
Stormwater drainage O O O O O O O O O O
Flood prevention O O O O O O O O O O
Kerb and guttering O O O O O O O O O O
Footpaths O O O O O O O O O O
Cycleways O O O O O O O O O O
Waste collection and disposal O O O O O O O O O O
Recycling and waste reduction O O O O O O O O O O
Council’s response to community needs O O O O O O O O O O
The way Council employees deal with
the public O O O O O O O O O O
Community involvement in Council
decision making O O O O O O O O O O
Information supplied to residents
about Council activities O O O O O O O O O O
Long term planning and vision O O O O O O O O O O
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 5
November 2014
Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one
or two issues but across all responsibility areas?
O Very satisfied
O Satisfied
O Somewhat satisfied
O Not very satisfied
O Not at all satisfied
Q3c. (If not at all/not very satisfied with Council’s performance overall), what is your main reason for
feeling that way?
.....................................................................................................................................................
Part D - Council’s Financial Sustainability
The Council has recently adopted a Financial Sustainability Initiative to ensure that, over the long-term, it
has sufficient funds to provide the levels of services and infrastructure agreed with the community.
The objectives of this initiative are to reduce costs, increase revenues and improve value-for-money.
This initiative includes nine projects that will, among other things, improve the transparency of subsidies and
sponsorships; take a more strategic approach to Council’s property portfolio; and identify productivity
improvements and cost savings.
Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs,
increasing revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations? Prompt
O Very supportive
O Supportive
O Somewhat supportive
O Not very supportive
O Not at all supportive
Q4b. Why do you say that?
..........................................................................................................................................................
Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range
of options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates
levy? Prompt
O Very important
O Important
O Somewhat important
O Not very important
O Not at all important
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 6
November 2014
Part E - Council communication
Q6a. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?
Prompt
O Very satisfied
O Satisfied
O Somewhat
O Not very satisfied
O Not at all satisfied
Q6b. (If not very/not at all satisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?
.....................................................................................................................................................
Q7. In which of the following ways have you been kept informed about Council activities and services?
O Radio (specify station).............. O Television (specify station)..............
O Newcastle Herald O Cessnock Advertiser
O Maitland Mercury O Branxton/Greta Vineyards News
O Our Own News Wollombi O Council’s website
O Council’s Facebook page O Council’s Twitter messages
O Council brochures and displays O Council meetings/briefings
O Council staff O Word of mouth
Q8a. During 2016 Council will be reviewing the Community Strategic Plan for the Cessnock local
government area. Would you be interested in contributing to this process?
Yes O No O
Q8b. (If yes), could you please provide us with the following contact details?
Name: …………………………………………..
Phone: …………..…………………………….
Address: …………………………………………
Email: …………………………………………
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 7
November 2014
D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Q7. Please stop me when I read out your age group.
O 18 – 29
O 30 – 44
O 45 – 59
O 60 years and over
Q8. Which town or area do you live in?
O Aberdare O East Branxton O Neath
O Abermain O Ellalong O North Rothbury
O Abernethy O Elrington O Nulkaba
O Bellbird (incl. hghts) O Greta O Paxton
O Blackhill O Heddon Greta O Paynes Crossing
O Branxton O Kearsley O Pelaw Main
O Buchanan O Kitchener O Pokolbin
O Bucketty O Kurri Kurri O Quorrobolong
O Cessnock O Laguna O Rothbury
O Cessnock East O Lovedale O Sawyers Gully
O Cessnock South O Millfield O Stanford Merthyr
O Cessnock West O Mount View O Weston
O Cliffleigh O Mount Vincent O Wollombi
O Congewai O Mulbring
O Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………
Q9. How long have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area?
.....................................................................................................................................................
Q10. Gender. (Determined by voice)
O Male O Female
That completes the survey and I thank you for your assistance. This information will assist Council in providing
better services for residents.
I confirm again that my name is …………….. from Micromex Research. If you have any questions with
regards to this survey you may contact Council or discuss this survey with my supervisor on 02 43522388.
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 8
November 2014
Appendix B Questionnaire
Appendix C Region Definitions
Cessnock City Council
Community Research Page | 9
November 2014
CENTRAL CESSNOCK & SURROUNDS
Cessnock
Bellbird
Nulkaba
Aberdare
Cessnock West
Kearsley
Cessnock East
Cessnock South
Rothbury
Abernethy
Kitchener
Lovedale
Vineyard Grove
KURRI KURRI & SURROUNDS
Kurri Kurri
Weston
Abermain
Heddon Greta
Pelaw Main
Mulbring
Stanford Merthyr
Mount VIncent
GRETA-BRANXTON & SURROUNDS
Branxton
North Rothbury
Greta
East Branxton
RURAL WEST
Paxton
Millfield
Ellalong
Buchanan
Bucketty
Laguna