j00858 css 2020 hindmarsh shire council report

2020 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

Hindmarsh Shire CouncilCoordinated by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

2

Background and objectives 3

Key findings and recommendations 4

Detailed findings 11

Overall performance 12

Customer service 28

Council direction 34

Individual service areas 40

Community consultation and engagement 41

Lobbying on behalf of the community 45

Decisions made in the interest of the community

49

Condition of sealed local roads 53

Informing the community 57

Condition of local streets and footpaths 61

Enforcement of local laws 65

Elderly support services 69

Recreational facilities 73

Appearance of public areas 77

Waste management 81

Business and community development and tourism

85

Planning and building permits 89

Roadside slashing and weed control 93

Maintenance of unsealed roads 95

Detailed demographics 99

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences

101

Appendix B: Further project information 106

J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – Hindmarsh Shire Council

Background and objectives

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey (CSS) creates a vital interface between the council and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local people about the place they live, work and play and provides confidence for councils in their efforts and abilities.

Now in its twenty-first year, this survey provides insight into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides a reliable historical source of the community’s views since 1998. A selection of results from the last nine years shows that councils in Victoria continue to provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 21 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-wide report which contains all of the aggregated results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 21 years of results, the CSS offers councils a long-term measure of how they are performing – essential for councils that work over the long term to provide valuable services and infrastructure to their communities.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional. Participating councils have various choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

3


Key findings and recommendations

4

Co

mp

are

d t

o

Sta

te-w

ide

aver

age

Co

mp

are

d t

o

gro

up

av

era

ge

Hindmarsh Shire Council – at a glance

5

Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

Council performance compared to State-wide and group averages

The three areas where Council performance is significantly higher by the widest margin

Lobbying

Areas where Council performance is significantly

lower

Hindmarsh 61

State-wide 58

Small Rural 56

Lobbying

Appearance of public areas

Elderly support services

Waste management

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

None


Summary of core measures

6

Index scores


66

69

7371

7371 72

7072

47

47

45

52

48

54

50

53

59

63 6462 63

60

65

61

5054

6259 59

5960

59

59

60

57 58

6061

59

50

5560

5959

6062

61 61

43

53

62

61

57 55 51

5352

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sealed local roads

Community consultation

Customer service

Overall council

direction

Overall performance

Lobbying Making community decisions

Summary of core measures

7

Core measures summary results (%)


14

12

11

11

7

33

34

32

31

34

28

37

37

34

29

31

30

20

10

13

10

12

22

5

4

4

4

4

10

5

1

5

16

7

2

Overall performance


Lobbying

Making community decisions

Sealed local roads

Customer service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

18 63 15 4Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Services Hindmarsh

2020Hindmarsh

2019Small Rural

2020State-wide

2020Highestscore

Lowestscore

Overall performance 61 65 56 58Aged 18-34

yearsAged 50-64

years

Overall council direction 52 53 50 51Aged 18-34

yearsAged 50-64

years

Customer service 72 70 70 70Aged 65+

yearsAged 50-64

years

Appearance of public areas 79 80 72 72Aged 18-34 years, West

Ward residents

North Ward residents,

Aged 50-64 years

Elderly support services 74 75 71 68Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Recreational facilities 71 73 68 70Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Waste management 71 75 64 65

North Ward residents,

Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years

Enforcement of local laws 66 65 62 63Aged 18-34

yearsAged 50-64

years

Lobbying 61 61 52 53Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Local streets & footpaths 61 65 57 58Aged 18-34 years, Men

Aged 50-64 years

Summary of Hindmarsh Shire Council performance

8Significantly higher / lower than Hindmarsh Shire Council 2020 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.


Services Hindmarsh

2020Hindmarsh

2019Small Rural

2020State-wide

2020Highestscore

Lowestscore

Bus/community dev./tourism

61 63 58 59Aged 18-34

yearsAged 50-64

years

Consultation & engagement

59 60 54 55Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Informing the community 59 61 58 59Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Community decisions 59 61 53 53Aged 18-34

yearsAged 35-49

years

Building & planning permits 52 50 46 51Aged 18-34

yearsAged 50-64

years

Slashing & weed control 50 56 48 49Aged 18-34

yearsNorth Ward residents

Sealed local roads 50 54 51 54Aged 65+

years, East Ward residents

Aged 50-64 years

Unsealed roads 42 46 43 44East Ward residents

Aged 50-64 years

Summary of Hindmarsh Shire Council performance

9


Significantly higher / lower than Hindmarsh Shire Council 2020 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.

Focus areas for the next 12 months

10

Positive perceptions of Council performance have been maintained over the past year on most individual service areas. However, Council performance has recorded small but significant declines on waste management, local roads, streets and roadside areas and performance perceptions overall – representing a reversal of the gains made by Council in 2019.

Overview

Council should focus on maintaining and improving performance in the individual service areas that most influence perception of overall performance: Decisions made in the interest of the community, lobbying on behalf of and informing the community, elderly support services, sealed and unsealed roads, and local streets and footpaths. Of concern, performance perceptions in these latter areas have declined significantly this year.

Key influences on perceptions of overall

performance

Importantly, Council performs significantly higher than the State-wide and Small Rural council averages on most individual service areas. It is only on one of its weaker performing areas, sealed roads, that Council falls significantly behind the State-wide average this year.

Comparison to state and area grouping

Council should look to regain improvements in community perceptions recorded over 2018-2019 but lost over the past year. Attending to poorer performing, but important and influential areas, such as road maintenance, can help to improve overall ratings of Council performance. Council should also look to maintain its positive ratings of waste management and recreational facilities by attending to the small geographic and demographic pockets of discontent on these service areas.

Regaining positive perceptions


DETAILED FINDINGS

11

Overall performance

12

Overall performance

13


The overall performance index score of 61 for Hindmarsh Shire Council represents a statistically significant (at the 95% confidence interval) four-point decrease from 2019, but is similar to the 2018 result (index score 60).

• A key contributor to this four-point decline is a significant eight-point decrease among East Ward residents.

• Perceptions of Council performance have also declined significantly among 50 to 64 year olds and male residents – by 10 points and six points, respectively.

However, on a positive note, Hindmarsh Shire Council’s overall performance is rated significantly higher than the average rating for councils in the Small Rural group and State-wide (index scores of 56 and 58, respectively).

More than three times as many residents rate Hindmarsh Shire Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (48%) as those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ (14%). A further 37% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s overall performance as ‘average’.

Council's youngest adult residents (18 to 34 years) rate its performance most highly, with 59% providing a rating of 'very good' or 'good’ (index score of 69).

Overall performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

State-wide58

Aged 18-34 years rate overall performance highest (69)

Aged 50-64 years rate overall performance lowest (51)

Hindmarsh61

Small Rural56

68

69

66

70

62

65

64

64

60

60

58

61

63

65

62

61

64

60

55

58

59

50

56

60

62

66

69

65

66

63

58

58

59

61

58

61

61

65

64

63

66

62

57

59

59

61

57

58

64

67

67

61

68

64

62

61

60

64

59

59

65

68

65

64

70

63

56

61

61

61

n/a

57

65

60

60

55

64

59

57

57

60

54

n/a

57

62

51

56

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

51

60

54

n/a

50

Overall performance

2020 overall performance (index scores)

69p

65

64

62

62

61

59

58

58q

57

56q

51q

18-34

65+

Women

East Ward

West Ward

Hindmarsh

North Ward

Men

State-wide

35-49

Small Rural

50-64


14

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Hindmarsh Shire Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Overall performance

15

2020 overall performance (%)


14

14

12

17

11

10

14

7

4

9

8

10

16

15

13

15

17

13

5

18

34

41

40

37

42

46

41

41

33

37

34

37

36

31

27

41

42

27

24

40

37

35

31

32

33

34

32

35

42

36

37

35

33

40

43

31

36

38

48

30

10

7

10

11

10

8

8

11

13

11

13

15

9

7

10

10

3

17

11

9

4

2

7

3

4

2

4

5

8

6

7

3

6

4

6

3

5

10

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Hindmarsh Shire Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Council performance across a majority of individual service areas is in line with perceptions 12 months ago. The appearance of public areas (index score of 79) continues to be where Council performs best, particularly in the West Ward (index score of 83, significantly higher than the Council average).

Further to this result, public areas, and parks and gardens are each volunteered by 7% of residents as the best aspect of their local council.

Council’s next highest rated service areas are elderly support services (index score of 74), waste management and recreational facilities (index scores of 71 each).

While still highly rated in 2020, it will be important to attend to performance on waste management over the next 12 months. Performance is down four index points since last year to its lowest level since 2016, with the decline most notable among older residents aged 65+ years.

Similarly, to shore up Council’s high performance rating on recreational facilities, it will be important to arrest the decline over the last 12 months in perceptions among older residents (65+ years) and East Ward.

However, on a positive note, Council continues to rate significantly higher than the Small Rural group averages on these top four service areas.

Top performing service areas

16


The appearance of public areas (index score of 79) is the area where Council performed best in 2020.

Council's road and roadside maintenance is currently rated poor to average and is in need of attention over the next 12 months.

Community perceptions of Council in the area of unsealed roads (index score of 42) have significantly worsened over the past year. The four-point improvement from 2018 to 2019 has been reversed over the past year and an increased number of East Ward residents now see unsealed roads as an important Council responsibility.

Resident perceptions of Council performance have also deteriorated since 2019 on sealed local roads (index score of 50, down four points) and roadside slashing and weed control (index score 50, down six points). It will be particularly important to attend to concerns in the East Ward, where performance ratings are down eight and 14 index points, respectively.

While Council performance on the related area of local streets and footpaths rates reasonably well overall (index score of 61), positive perceptions have also declined here over the past year (down four points) and should be a focus moving forward.

Further to this, unprompted, residents volunteer sealed (21%) and unsealed (12%) road maintenance as the council areas most in need of improvement. Almost another one in 10 volunteer community consultation (9%) and communication (9%).

Low performing service areas

17


Council rates lowest in the area of unsealed roads (index score of 42, down four points).

79

74

71

71

66

61

61

61

59

59

59

52

50

50

42



Waste management

Recreational facilities

Enforcement of local laws


Local streets & footpaths

Lobbying

Community decisions


Informing the community

Planning & building permits

Slashing & weed control

Sealed local roads

Unsealed roads

Individual service area performance

2020 individual service area performance (index scores)


18

80

75

75

73

65

63

65

61

61

60

61

50

56

54

46

79

73

74

73

64

61

60

62

60

60

60

54

54

48

42

78

75

75

73

65

61

62

60

58

59

64

54

53

52

46

74

72

68

67

63

58

59

59

57

59

62

47

n/a

45

n/a

77

74

71

71

66

59

61

59

60

59

63

53

n/a

47

n/a

76

76

73

71

68

61

58

60

59

62

66

53

n/a

47

n/a

71

72

73

69

64

57

53

55

n/a

54

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

71

70

67

64

54

51

50

n/a

50

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Individual service area performance

19

2020 individual service area performance (%)


38

24

28

24

17

12

16

11

12

11

11

7

7

5

5

43

43

38

43

39

40

31

34

32

33

31

28

27

24

16

15

22

18

23

28

29

29

31

34

37

29

30

32

26

34

3

7

4

5

4

13

13

12

13

10

10

22

17

12

26

1

1

1

2

4

5

5

4

4

6

4

10

12

9

14

1

3

10

3

8

2

6

7

5

3

16

2

5

24

5


Waste management






Community decisions



Lobbying

Sealed local roads

Slashing & weed control


Unsealed roads


Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

83

83

82

80

78

76

75

75

73

72

74

71

67

63

84

82

82

77

77

72

76

73

69

71

73

70

68

61

81

79

80

78

76

74

75

74

74

72

73

72

70

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

85

85

82

81

78

78

78

76

75

75

74

72

69

65

Sealed local roads

Unsealed roads


Community decisions



Waste management



Lobbying





Individual service area importance

2020 individual service area importance (index scores)


20

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 6Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Individual service area importance

2020 individual service area importance (%)

55

45

54

42

36

34

37

33

30

27

32

26

25

19

35

41

31

41

44

46

41

41

42

45

39

42

37

39

7

12

11

12

17

15

17

19

20

25

21

28

27

26

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

3

4

3

8

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

2

Sealed local roads


Unsealed roads

Community decisions


Waste management



Lobbying






Extremely important Very important Fairly importantNot that important Not at all important Can't say


21Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 6

85

85

81

78

78

76

75

75

65

Unsealed roads

Sealed local roads

Community decisions




Lobbying



42

50

59

59

61

59

61

61

52

Individual service areas importance vs performance

22Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is necessary.

-42

-36

-22

-20

-18

-17

-14

-14

-14

Influences on perceptions of overall performance

23

The individual service area that has the strongest influence on the overall performance rating (based on regression analysis) is:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community.

Good communication and transparency with residents about decisions the Council has made in the community’s interest provides the greatest opportunity to drive up overall opinion of Council’s performance.

Following on from that, other individual service areas with a moderate influence on the overall performance rating are:

• Elderly support services

• Lobbying on behalf of the community

• Informing the community

• The condition of sealed local roads, excluding VicRoads

• Maintenance of unsealed roads

• The condition of local streets and footpaths.

Looking at just these key service areas, elderly support services has a high performance index (74) and a moderate positive influence on the overall performance rating, therefore maintaining this positive result should remain a focus.

Other service areas that have a key influence on overall perceptions, but perform less well, are lobbying and informing the community (performance index of 61 and 59, respectively).

A focus on keeping residents informed about Council plans, decisions and activities, and demonstrating efforts to advocate and defend community interests can also help shore up positive opinion of Council overall.

However, also in need of attention is Council’s maintenance of unsealed roads, which is poorly rated (performance index of 42) and the condition of sealed local roads, which is rated just ‘average’ (performance index of 50).

It will be important to attend to resident concerns about the condition of local roads to help improve opinion of Council's overall performance.


The regressions are shown on the following two charts.

1. The first chart shows the results of a regression analysis of all individual service areas selected by Council.

2. The second chart shows the results of a regression performed on a smaller set of service areas, being those with a moderate-to-strong influence on overall performance. Service areas with a weak influence on overall performance (i.e. a low Standardised Beta Coefficient) have been excluded from the analysis.

Key insights from this analysis are derived from the second chart.

Regression analysis explained

24

We use regression analysis to investigate which individual service areas, such as community consultation, condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the independent variables) are influencing respondent perceptions of overall council performance (the dependent variable).

In the charts that follow:

• The horizontal axis represents the council performance index for each individual service. Service areas appearing on the right-side of the chart have a higher performance index than those on the left.

• The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta Coefficient from the multiple regression performed. This measures the contribution of each service area to the model. Service areas near the top of the chart have a greater positive effect on overall performance ratings than service areas located closer to the axis.


Influence on overall performance: all service areas

25

The multiple regression analysis model above (all service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.620 and adjusted R-square value of 0.605, which means that 62% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 41.8. This model should be interpreted with some caution as some data is not normally distributed and not all service areas have linear correlations.

2020 regression analysis (all service areas)



Lobbying


Condition of local streets




The appearance of public areas

Waste management

Business, community dev. and tourism

Planning and building permits

Roadside slashing and weed control

Maintenance of unsealed roads

Community decisions

Condition of sealed local

roads

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Gre

ate

r p

osi

tive

influ

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ativ

e in

flue

nce

o

n O

vera

llP

erf

orm

an

ce

Influence on overall performance: key service areas

26The multiple regression analysis model above (reduced set of service areas) has an R-squared value of 0.609 and adjusted R-square value of 0.602, which means that 61% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 87.2.

2020 regression analysis (key service areas)


Community decisions


Lobbying


Condition of sealed local

roads

Maintenance of unsealed roads

Condition of local streets

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gre

ate

r p

osi

tive

influ

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ativ

e in

flue

nce

o

n O

vera

llP

erf

orm

an

ce

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

Focus on these areas satisfactorily to ensure negative perceptions do not have an overly negative impact on community perceptions of overall performance.

Key positive influence on overall rating and should remain a focus -but currently performing ‘well’ here. Improvements will have a moderate influence on overall perceptions.

Should remain a focus ascurrently performing ‘poorly’ here and improvements will have a moderate influence on overall perceptions.

21

12

9

9

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

6

Sealed Road Maintenance

Unsealed Road Maintenance

Community Consultation

Communication

Business Development

Financial Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Tourism

Waste Management

Treat All the Same /All Areas

Nothing

16

7

7

7

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

Customer Service

Parks and Gardens

Public Areas

Generally Good - Overall/No Complaints

Road/Street Maintenance

CommunityEngagement/Involvement/Communication

Community Support Services

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Aged Support Services

Waste Management

Tourism

Councillors

Best things about Council and areas for improvement

27

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Hindmarsh Shire Council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Councils asked group: 5Q17. What does Hindmarsh Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Councils asked group: 11A verbatim listing of responses to this question can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

2020 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -


2020 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -

Customer service

28

Customer service

Council’s customer service index of 72 maintains the high level of rated performance recorded since 2014 (index scores in the range of 70 to 73).

Council performance is also in line with the Small Rural group and State-wide averages (index score of 70 each).

Seven in ten residents (70%) provide a positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

• There are no significant differences in customer service rating among the demographic and geographic cohorts compared to the Council average.

Customer service (16%) is the most frequently mentioned ‘best thing’ about Hindmarsh Shire Council.

Contact with council and customer service

29


Contact with council

More than six in ten residents (64%) have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

• Rate of contact has been stable at 63% to 64% of residents since 2014.

• Those aged 35 to 49 years have had a significantly higher rate of contact with Council than other age groups – 82%, their highest to date.

Among those residents who have had contact with Council, 70% provide a positive customer service rating of

‘very good’ or ‘good’, including 33% of residents who rate Council’s

customer service as ‘very good’.


2020 contact with council (%)Have had contact

60

52

63 64 64 64 64 63 64

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

30


Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Hindmarsh Shire Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 12

63

76

63

56

66

61

63

65

61

68

50

60

67

72

64

59

64

62

64

66

61

70

66

57

73

75

65

64

59

64

64

64

61

68

53

58

79

74

60

57

64

66

64

62

60

69

52

53

72

66

66

55

64

64

64

65

63

71

69

56

70

67

n/a

66

60

62

63

65

n/a

64

47

65

54

54

n/a

53

48

53

52

52

60

56

49

53

58

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

60

58

61

n/a

48

62


2020 contact with council (%)

82p

67

66

66

65

65

64

64

63

60

60

56

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

East Ward

West Ward

Women

Hindmarsh

Men

State-wide

North Ward

18-34

65+

31


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Hindmarsh Shire Council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or socialmedia such as Facebook or Twitter?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 12Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

80

73

73

70

69

64

66

69

68

71

66

70

74

74

79

72

73

73

67

69

71

70

69

69

67

77

71

71

79

71

73

70

66

69

72

69

69

76

75

73

74

75

75

66

69

69

74

69

75

71

75

71

67

69

69

69

71

70

71

70

74

74

80

73

82

71

73

67

72

72

71

n/a

66

69

73

69

70

74

68

67

70

71

70

n/a

68

69

n/a

66

70

69

n/a

n/a

64

71

61

n/a

Customer service rating

32

2020 customer service rating (index scores)

75

74

73

72

71

71

71

70

70

70

70

70

65+

Women

West Ward

Hindmarsh

18-34

35-49

North Ward

East Ward

Men

State-wide

50-64

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Hindmarsh Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Customer service rating

33

2020 customer service rating (%)

33

31

35

32

32

35

35

25

25

31

31

28

35

34

29

36

33

29

28

39

37

37

35

37

42

34

38

44

40

36

37

44

28

40

38

36

32

41

39

36

20

20

18

20

14

14

15

19

17

17

18

20

24

17

22

18

25

20

21

16

5

4

4

4

5

6

7

6

11

7

7

1

9

4

5

5

4

6

7

3

5

7

7

6

6

8

4

5

7

6

7

7

3

5

6

4

5

4

5

6

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Hindmarsh Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Council direction

34

Over the last 12 months, 63% of residents believe the direction of Council’s overall performance has stayed the same, down four points on 2019.

• 18% believe the direction has improved in the last 12 months (unchanged from 2019).

• 15% believe it has deteriorated, up four points on 2019.

• Those aged 18 to 34 years are significantly more satisfied with overall council direction.

• Those aged 50 to 64 years are significantly less satisfied with overall council direction.

However, a majority (63%) of residents continue to rate Council as generally heading in the right direction, many more than the proportion who see it heading in the wrong direction (24%).

On trading off quality versus cost of Council services, more residents continue to prefer service cuts and keeping rates unchanged (42%) than rate rises to improve services (34%), with almost one in four (24%) undecided.

This represents a weaker preference for maintaining rates than in 2019, when a slight majority (51%) preferred service cuts, a similar number (33%) preferred rate rises, and fewer were undecided (16%).

Council direction

35


Overall council direction last 12 months

36

2020 overall direction (index scores)

67p

55

52

52

52

52

51

51

50

47

45

44q

18-34

East Ward

Men

West Ward

65+

Hindmarsh

Women

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

35-49

50-64

65

61

52

52

54

53

54

53

53

48

49

48

57

52

47

53

53

51

54

52

50

47

45

46

57

63

52

52

54

55

57

53

52

49

54

54

61

62

54

57

59

57

60

51

50

54

57

51

52

68

56

59

64

61

67

53

53

59

63

62

64

66

60

64

65

62

64

53

n/a

57

59

60

59

59

52

54

57

53

53

53

n/a

46

47

49

43

n/a

41

n/a

47

43

44

52

n/a

n/a

40

40


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Hindmarsh Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Overall council direction last 12 months

2020 overall council direction (%)

18

18

17

22

24

32

32

20

12

18

19

12

24

17

20

16

39

15

11

14

63

67

64

62

60

52

57

62

58

61

58

63

59

65

59

66

50

58

63

71

15

11

16

13

11

11

9

14

27

16

19

18

14

14

16

14

6

25

22

10

4

3

3

3

5

4

2

3

3

5

4

6

3

4

5

4

6

2

5

5

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

37


Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Hindmarsh Shire Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Right / wrong direction

38

2020 right / wrong direction (%)

20

18

15

22

20

25

27

20

10

17

22

21

24

18

20

21

30

13

12

24

43

49

49

45

44

45

48

44

43

46

42

37

46

43

39

46

46

45

32

46

13

10

13

9

8

10

7

11

16

13

11

18

7

14

13

13

12

18

18

9

11

10

11

10

11

9

8

14

20

14

11

12

12

10

13

9

3

17

17

9

13

13

11

13

16

11

10

11

12

10

14

12

11

15

16

10

10

7

21

13

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong directionDefinitely wrong direction Can't say


Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 2

Rates / services trade-off

39

2020 rates / services trade-off (%)

11

8

10

11

10

11

11

11

10

9

11

20

11

6

14

7

9

15

9

10

23

25

26

24

20

25

26

23

28

24

23

21

21

26

20

27

22

20

19

28

19

23

22

26

24

21

25

18

19

24

22

19

19

19

14

24

20

22

17

19

23

28

24

22

27

27

24

28

25

25

24

19

24

25

23

23

26

20

24

23

24

16

19

18

19

17

14

20

17

19

20

22

25

24

29

19

23

23

30

21

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts

Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say


Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 4

Individual service areas

40

Community consultation and engagement importance

41

2020 consultation and engagement importance (index scores)

74

72

74

73

76

75

75

74

74

78

74

75

75

76

73

74

74

73

74

72

63

77

74

71

73

75

74

72

75

74

74

73

71

77

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

79

78

77

76

76

76

76

75

75

74

74

73

Women

35-49

North Ward

65+

Small Rural

Hindmarsh

East Ward

West Ward

18-34

50-64

State-wide

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 3Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community consultation and engagement importance

42

2020 consultation and engagement importance (%)

33

29

28

25

29

34

41

33

30

33

34

29

45

31

31

41

44

41

47

42

40

36

42

43

34

48

43

32

42

44

19

24

26

23

23

21

14

19

21

23

14

22

15

23

17

4

3

4

2

4

3

8

4

2

6

1

3

7

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

3

4

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 3

Community consultation and engagement performance

43

2020 consultation and engagement performance (index scores)

62

63

64

61

60

59

60

55

56

56

56

56

58

58

63

63

60

57

62

60

60

55

54

56

60

60

60

64

59

54

60

57

59

55

55

54

58

62

62

60

59

58

61

55

59

54

55

55

64

56

59

61

59

57

63

58

57

56

56

59

68

60

64

63

62

61

66

60

56

57

n/a

61

55

52

56

56

54

53

58

53

54

57

n/a

53

55

n/a

49

51

50

49

n/a

n/a

48

57

n/a

52

70p

61

61

60

59

59

58

58

56

55q

54q

49q

18-34

East Ward

65+

Women

Hindmarsh

Men

West Ward

North Ward

50-64

State-wide

Small Rural

35-49


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community consultation and engagement performance

44

2020 consultation and engagement performance (%)

12

12

9

12

10

8

12

6

5

8

9

12

12

12

12

12

23

3

7

14

32

34

39

35

36

36

37

32

27

30

30

36

34

30

33

31

40

22

35

32

34

35

31

27

28

35

31

35

35

32

31

25

39

36

33

35

28

47

29

34

13

11

11

15

12

11

9

14

16

15

16

18

10

11

12

14

3

17

21

11

4

4

4

5

6

3

3

7

11

7

8

5

1

6

6

2

3

8

4

3

5

5

6

7

8

7

8

6

6

8

6

4

4

5

4

5

3

3

5

6

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

45

2020 lobbying importance (index scores)

75

70

74

75

72

74

72

70

71

68

71

67

75

72

75

76

71

70

67

70

68

66

71

68

76

75

73

75

72

70

72

70

71

68

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

79

77

77

75

75

74

73

73

73

73

73

68q

North Ward

35-49

Women

50-64

Hindmarsh

65+

West Ward

Small Rural

Men

18-34

East Ward

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 2Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

46

2020 lobbying importance (%)

30

27

22

26

23

28

38

27

28

29

31

23

40

35

26

42

39

45

40

38

42

44

42

40

41

43

49

37

38

43

20

27

26

27

27

21

12

23

23

21

20

19

17

19

23

4

5

5

3

8

5

3

4

4

5

3

6

5

4

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

4

3

2

5

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 2

Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

47

2020 lobbying performance (index scores)

62

67

66

57

62

61

61

60

58

54

55

56

69

62

60

59

59

62

65

66

61

54

53

56

54

66

61

60

56

60

65

61

58

54

55

59

63

62

59

53

59

59

58

64

54

53

54

55

62

62

56

57

59

59

60

65

55

55

56

59

61

64

60

56

58

60

62

65

56

56

n/a

59

54

59

56

51

53

55

56

58

53

55

n/a

53

61

52

n/a

n/a

50

50

50

n/a

47

55

n/a

44

73p

65

64

62

61

61

60

58

54q

53q

52q

50q

18-34

65+

East Ward

North Ward

Men

Hindmarsh

Women

West Ward

50-64

State-wide

Small Rural

35-49


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

48

2020 lobbying performance (%)

11

12

10

11

7

8

8

5

4

6

6

14

12

8

11

10

17

10

5

12

31

30

34

32

33

35

34

29

27

24

25

29

34

30

32

30

47

18

24

33

29

32

27

26

26

27

33

34

31

32

31

28

28

30

27

31

19

35

37

26

10

9

10

8

10

12

10

14

17

13

15

8

9

10

9

10

3

15

14

8

4

3

2

5

5

3

2

4

9

6

7

5

1

4

4

3

12

4

1

16

15

17

17

18

16

14

14

13

19

17

15

15

17

17

15

15

10

15

20

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Decisions made in the interest of the community importance

49

2020 community decisions made importance (index scores)

80

83

81

81

79

79

80

82

78

80

79

80

79

77

77

77

77

73

77

80

77

80

76

75

80

82

78

78

82

78

78

78

77

79

76

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

85p

84

82

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

79

77q

Women

35-49

Small Rural

West Ward

North Ward

18-34

Hindmarsh

50-64

65+

State-wide

East Ward

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 2Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Decisions made in the interest of the community importance

50

2020 community decisions made importance (%)

42

37

34

34

39

43

47

35

43

38

46

45

53

40

35

41

47

41

46

41

43

37

51

37

39

43

35

33

43

47

12

12

21

17

15

12

8

7

16

16

8

15

10

10

12

2

1

2

2

1

4

4

4

3

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

3

2

3

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 2

Decisions made in the interest of the community performance

51

2020 community decisions made performance (index scores)

64

57

65

63

64

61

61

59

55

55

57

56

64

61

62

62

58

60

61

57

54

52

58

55

55

58

61

63

60

58

57

54

54

55

56

59

55

54

63

60

56

57

62

55

54

53

54

54

64

58

60

62

54

60

65

58

55

56

56

60

60

55

64

61

60

59

64

57

57

n/a

54

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71p

62

61

61

60

59

58

58

53q

53q

53q

51q

18-34

North Ward

65+

Women

East Ward

Hindmarsh

West Ward

Men

State-wide

Small Rural

50-64

35-49


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Decisions made in the interest of the community performance

52

2020 community decisions made performance (%)

11

13

9

9

8

7

10

7

7

15

9

10

11

11

17

8

5

13

34

35

38

35

35

40

36

29

29

36

37

31

33

35

51

23

26

35

31

31

31

31

30

30

32

33

33

25

29

36

30

33

26

33

39

28

12

11

11

13

11

13

14

14

15

13

13

12

15

10

3

18

15

12

4

4

4

4

7

2

3

8

9

4

3

5

5

4

8

6

4

7

6

6

9

8

9

5

9

7

6

9

6

6

7

3

8

9

7

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance

53

2020 sealed local roads importance (index scores)

83

82

87

82

83

83

85

83

84

82

84

79

87

85

86

82

84

81

86

84

81

84

86

80

82

84

82

80

81

80

81

79

81

81

77

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

90p

88

88

86

85

85

85

84

83

83

81

79q

North Ward

50-64

35-49

Men

Hindmarsh

65+

Women

West Ward

East Ward

Small Rural

18-34

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 2Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance

54

2020 sealed local roads importance (%)

55

45

47

41

38

49

64

46

55

57

52

58

57

57

50

35

44

45

43

43

38

32

43

32

33

37

22

38

38

38

7

10

7

14

16

10

2

8

10

7

8

8

3

5

11

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

3

3

1

9

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 2

The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance

55

2020 sealed local roads performance (index scores)

60

64

56

55

53

48

54

51

53

52

47

52

56

49

53

51

49

47

48

52

45

35

43

48

54

54

53

56

50

47

52

59

49

56

43

50

51

46

54

46

52

49

45

51

45

39

39

40

51

51

55

49

52

41

47

52

45

44

40

48

48

47

55

49

n/a

54

47

58

44

43

38

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56p

56

54p

52

51

51

50

49

48

45

43q

42q

65+

East Ward

State-wide

Women

Small Rural

18-34

Hindmarsh

West Ward

Men

35-49

North Ward

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance

56

2020 sealed local roads performance (%)

7

9

8

9

6

5

7

11

8

5

14

4

7

8

8

5

5

10

28

33

24

28

25

24

25

32

30

20

34

27

27

28

26

28

18

34

30

30

35

32

29

37

31

28

31

28

21

35

27

32

31

25

31

31

22

19

18

20

21

18

20

16

17

33

15

21

24

21

29

23

29

15

10

8

14

9

17

14

15

11

13

13

12

8

13

8

6

17

15

7

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

2

4

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18

Informing the community importance

57

2020 informing community importance (index scores)

78

76

72

75

82

76

78

77

75

76

75

75

75

73

75

74

66

72

70

72

73

75

75

69

75

76

74

75

73

74

73

73

72

76

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

82p

80

79

79

78

78

77

77

77

77

75q

75

Women

North Ward

35-49

50-64

18-34

Hindmarsh

West Ward

65+

East Ward

Small Rural

State-wide

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 2Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Informing the community importance

58

2020 informing community importance (%)

36

33

26

27

32

35

39

35

35

30

41

35

42

39

31

44

43

40

44

42

43

46

43

44

44

44

47

38

39

49

17

20

29

25

22

18

13

18

19

20

15

15

17

18

18

2

4

3

2

4

3

4

1

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 2

Informing the community performance

59

2020 informing community performance (index scores)

63

64

57

61

60

65

61

58

60

60

57

57

63

62

57

63

59

58

60

56

57

64

59

55

64

64

63

68

59

64

64

58

60

63

61

65

63

66

55

63

59

64

62

58

60

66

58

58

63

64

62

66

61

58

63

60

59

67

61

64

66

71

61

67

62

66

66

n/a

64

70

59

65

62

59

57

60

61

57

59

n/a

58

62

57

58

57

53

n/a

51

60

n/a

53

n/a

56

n/a

50

54

66p

61

60

59

59

59

59

58

58

58

54

53

18-34

65+

North Ward

Women

State-wide

East Ward

Hindmarsh

Small Rural

Men

West Ward

50-64

35-49


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Informing the community performance

60

2020 informing community performance (%)

11

10

11

18

12

13

17

11

6

12

11

10

12

10

10

11

17

7

4

14

33

37

37

39

42

39

42

36

35

35

35

40

30

32

35

31

39

32

29

34

37

36

35

24

26

34

31

34

33

32

32

35

41

36

34

40

35

33

45

36

10

11

9

11

12

9

8

13

16

13

13

9

11

10

9

11

3

12

16

9

6

3

5

6

5

3

3

5

9

5

6

6

4

7

7

4

3

12

4

5

3

3

3

3

4

3

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

5

4

2

3

5

2

3

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Councils asked group: 10

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance

61

2020 streets and footpaths importance (index scores)

78

79

81

78

78

78

80

77

77

76

79

79

76

78

81

78

79

77

74

78

76

73

78

76

77

79

78

78

76

76

78

77

76

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

81

81

81

80

78

78

78

77

76

75

73

North Ward

East Ward

Women

50-64

65+

Hindmarsh

35-49

State-wide

Small Rural

Men

West Ward

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 3Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance

62

2020 streets and footpaths importance (%)

37

36

34

32

36

35

47

42

30

32

43

30

38

42

38

41

41

40

42

42

42

34

42

44

44

38

41

40

41

42

17

20

21

20

19

18

14

13

21

19

15

20

18

15

16

3

1

2

1

2

3

2

2

4

4

2

9

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

1

2

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 3

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance

63

2020 streets and footpaths performance (index scores)

67

66

66

63

66

65

63

59

57

63

63

63

65

63

70

55

61

60

57

58

57

57

52

59

63

62

70

62

61

62

61

57

57

62

55

62

67

62

66

57

59

59

57

57

58

55

51

54

63

60

68

61

60

61

58

58

59

61

54

59

67

60

66

58

58

58

57

58

n/a

56

50

51

57

55

65

52

53

53

54

58

n/a

51

40

51

56

52

n/a

52

54

51

n/a

57

n/a

49

n/a

43

65

65

64

62

62

61

59

58q

57q

57

56

54q

18-34

Men

West Ward

35-49

65+

Hindmarsh

North Ward

State-wide

Small Rural

Women

East Ward

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 9Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance

64

2020 streets and footpaths performance (%)

12

20

15

15

10

13

12

13

9

13

12

11

12

13

14

10

12

10

7

17

40

37

35

38

42

39

37

28

29

34

33

42

34

43

47

33

53

43

33

36

29

25

28

29

25

29

27

31

27

28

27

25

28

31

24

34

23

30

35

26

13

11

12

9

11

10

13

13

19

15

15

14

18

9

9

16

8

10

17

14

5

4

7

6

9

7

8

14

13

8

8

6

8

2

4

5

3

3

8

4

2

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

4

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 9

Enforcement of local laws importance

65

2020 law enforcement importance (index scores)

72

69

70

71

71

66

67

65

63

68

63

61

74

71

69

69

71

65

68

67

66

66

65

62

72

73

71

71

71

70

70

67

71

67

67

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75p

72

71

71

70

69

69

67

67

66q

65

63q

Women

East Ward

65+

18-34

State-wide

North Ward

Hindmarsh

West Ward

50-64

Small Rural

35-49

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 4Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Enforcement of local laws importance

66

2020 law enforcement importance (%)

25

20

20

24

26

22

24

28

24

18

32

34

18

25

24

37

36

42

38

38

35

42

38

34

35

39

29

37

32

44

27

32

29

30

26

29

22

25

30

30

23

26

33

27

24

8

8

8

5

7

9

8

6

9

13

3

9

10

13

4

2

2

2

1

2

4

3

2

2

3

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 4

Enforcement of local laws performance

67

2020 law enforcement performance (index scores)

69

67

67

67

65

63

66

59

63

63

64

63

62

61

65

68

64

62

65

62

60

66

64

63

70

63

67

70

65

63

65

63

63

63

64

65

68

62

64

64

63

61

60

62

61

63

63

64

69

60

69

70

66

63

66

66

64

66

66

66

72

65

70

72

68

66

66

66

70

65

66

n/a

64

60

66

69

64

62

63

64

68

63

65

n/a

66

n/a

65

n/a

64

63

63

n/a

67

60

65

n/a

73p

67

66

66

66

66

66

65

64

63

63q

62q

18-34

East Ward

Women

West Ward

Hindmarsh

Men

65+

North Ward

35-49

50-64

State-wide

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Councils asked group: 10Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Enforcement of local laws performance

68

2020 law enforcement performance (%)

17

13

14

14

9

14

16

13

12

12

11

20

16

15

15

19

25

15

12

16

39

43

39

43

42

40

46

43

44

38

38

38

38

41

39

40

45

42

36

37

28

24

27

24

25

27

22

22

27

27

26

20

30

30

29

26

17

28

33

29

4

6

8

9

7

6

6

10

7

8

8

6

4

4

6

3

3

8

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

3

3

3

4

4

4

8

2

3

2

6

3

5

4

5

8

9

8

8

14

10

8

8

5

12

12

8

10

7

9

6

6

2

12

9

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Councils asked group: 10

Elderly support services importance

69

2020 elderly support importance (index scores)

84

86

81

79

81

82

83

80

82

82

79

80

85

79

82

80

85

82

84

80

81

80

79

79

83

77

77

81

80

80

81

79

80

81

77

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

85

84

83

82

82

82

82

81

81

81

80

80q

Women

18-34

West Ward

35-49

50-64

Hindmarsh

East Ward

Small Rural

65+

North Ward

Men

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 4Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Elderly support services importance

70

2020 elderly support importance (%)

45

42

43

37

39

43

42

47

45

40

50

49

45

51

39

41

44

40

46

42

41

40

39

42

42

39

37

45

31

46

12

13

15

14

15

13

15

12

11

15

10

14

7

15

13

2

1

1

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 4

Elderly support services performance

71

2020 elderly support performance (index scores)

78

76

77

75

72

75

74

71

74

71

71

68

72

83

76

75

70

73

72

69

64

73

69

68

71

79

78

79

76

75

72

71

71

75

74

68

68

76

76

73

69

72

71

70

72

70

71

68

72

81

78

76

73

74

73

72

67

73

73

69

74

82

79

79

72

76

73

n/a

75

73

78

70

69

79

74

75

70

72

70

n/a

68

70

74

69

73

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

70

n/a

n/a

67

73

69

83p

77

77

76

75

74

72

71q

70

69

68q

68q

18-34

West Ward

65+

Women

North Ward

Hindmarsh

Men

Small Rural

East Ward

50-64

35-49

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Elderly support services performance

72

2020 elderly support performance (%)

28

24

27

28

22

23

31

21

21

15

20

25

23

32

23

33

44

17

16

33

38

43

36

44

39

46

39

42

43

30

34

41

37

37

41

35

26

43

45

38

18

16

17

14

14

13

12

13

18

20

18

17

22

16

18

18

17

20

19

17

4

4

4

4

5

3

4

6

4

5

5

2

8

3

4

4

5

7

4

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

2

1

10

13

13

8

17

13

13

16

11

28

21

14

8

10

12

9

14

12

11

8

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9

Recreational facilities importance

73

2020 recreational facilities importance (index scores)

71

73

74

72

72

72

71

69

71

70

69

71

68

72

68

72

73

69

70

70

71

73

67

68

71

71

74

71

72

72

72

70

72

71

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78p

75

74

73

72

72

72

72

71

70

69

69

35-49

Women

East Ward

Small Rural

State-wide

65+

Hindmarsh

West Ward

North Ward

50-64

Men

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 5Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Recreational facilities importance

74

2020 recreational facilities importance (%)

26

23

20

23

24

26

29

27

24

24

29

25

42

25

20

42

43

46

45

45

44

33

46

43

36

47

28

30

43

54

28

28

28

28

26

25

30

25

28

34

21

44

27

24

23

3

5

6

2

4

4

6

3

4

2

3

2

5

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 5

Recreational facilities performance

75

2020 recreational facilities performance (index scores)

70

80

79

74

73

70

73

70

71

68

71

70

73

72

78

73

73

69

73

69

78

69

72

65

68

73

78

76

73

69

70

70

76

69

74

68

56

70

77

67

67

59

66

69

71

68

65

61

65

73

77

72

71

67

70

70

74

70

71

65

66

76

78

74

71

66

68

71

73

n/a

70

66

68

69

73

69

69

68

69

70

71

n/a

68

66

67

n/a

72

66

67

n/a

68

70

n/a

n/a

64

65

78p

74

73

72

71

70

70

70

70

68q

66

65q

18-34

East Ward

65+

Women

Hindmarsh

North Ward

Men

State-wide

West Ward

Small Rural

50-64

35-49


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 11Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Recreational facilities performance

76

2020 recreational facilities performance (%)

24

31

27

28

19

22

25

19

16

23

22

23

29

21

24

23

32

13

16

29

43

38

43

42

40

47

43

49

45

42

40

49

39

42

39

46

51

47

44

36

23

20

18

21

23

20

19

19

28

22

24

18

22

26

26

19

14

27

25

25

5

6

6

3

9

7

7

8

7

6

7

5

5

6

4

7

3

7

10

3

2

2

2

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

4

1

1

3

1

3

3

2

3

3

4

2

5

2

3

2

2

4

4

1

5

3

3

3

3

3

5

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Councils asked group: 11

The appearance of public areas importance

77

2020 public areas importance (index scores)

76

77

70

75

74

74

74

73

73

73

73

71

76

75

74

72

73

73

74

73

74

73

65

69

75

74

68

73

74

73

74

73

74

79

70

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

72

Women

65+

35-49

North Ward

East Ward

Hindmarsh

Small Rural

West Ward

State-wide

50-64

18-34

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 5Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The appearance of public areas importance

78

2020 public areas importance (%)

27

24

22

27

25

26

23

30

27

23

31

28

25

26

28

45

49

51

44

47

48

56

42

42

42

49

36

52

42

49

25

26

23

27

25

24

20

23

28

32

18

30

22

27

23

3

2

3

1

2

2

2

5

2

3

2

6

2

4

1

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Councils asked group: 5

The appearance of public areas performance

79

2020 public areas performance (index scores)

81

85

80

80

80

81

80

77

78

73

73

72

86

88

79

73

79

80

80

75

78

74

72

71

75

86

79

80

78

80

77

74

76

76

74

71

70

82

74

71

74

78

74

68

72

70

73

71

77

85

78

72

77

79

75

66

76

76

74

72

78

83

78

77

76

75

73

70

74

73

n/a

72

71

82

71

75

71

71

71

64

69

69

n/a

71

70

n/a

72

73

71

72

69

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

71

83

83p

80

80

79

78

77

76

74q

74

72q

72q

18-34

West Ward

Women

35-49

Hindmarsh

65+

Men

East Ward

50-64

North Ward

Small Rural

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 12Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The appearance of public areas performance

80

2020 public areas performance (%)

38

39

42

39

31

34

32

32

28

26

27

33

30

45

33

43

45

40

28

39

43

46

38

42

46

45

45

35

40

45

45

41

48

41

47

39

43

47

48

38

15

13

15

13

14

14

17

20

20

21

19

13

18

13

15

14

12

5

17

19

3

2

2

4

6

4

4

9

6

6

6

9

3

3

3

5

7

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

1

3

4

2

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Councils asked group: 12

Waste management importance

81

2020 waste management importance (index scores)

81

79

77

78

79

78

76

75

73

69

75

71

81

80

77

77

78

77

74

76

77

74

75

72

79

78

77

75

76

72

75

75

75

73

76

72

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82p

81

80

80

79

78

78

78

76

75

75

74q

State-wide

Women

65+

East Ward

Small Rural

18-34

North Ward

Hindmarsh

West Ward

35-49

50-64

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 5Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Waste management importance

82

2020 waste management importance (%)

34

30

30

28

44

39

32

39

31

28

39

39

32

28

36

46

43

46

47

42

43

45

43

49

45

47

36

47

49

49

15

22

20

21

11

14

16

16

15

19

11

21

17

16

12

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

4

1

3

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

1

3

2

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 5

Waste management performance

83

2020 waste management performance (index scores)

75

73

80

75

75

74

76

74

71

71

68

66

72

72

76

72

74

80

68

75

75

70

70

69

72

73

78

75

75

76

77

75

72

74

71

70

65

66

76

64

68

71

66

71

57

66

70

69

71

74

77

69

71

74

68

74

63

68

72

71

69

73

80

73

73

77

75

73

70

68

73

n/a

70

72

78

72

73

76

73

73

68

72

71

n/a

n/a

71

73

68

70

n/a

n/a

72

68

70

72

n/a

75

75

74

73

71

70

70

70

69

66

65q

64q

North Ward

18-34

65+

Men

Hindmarsh

West Ward

East Ward

Women

35-49

50-64

State-wide

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Councils asked group: 13Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Waste management performance

84

2020 waste management performance (%)

24

29

28

31

19

24

26

25

21

20

18

32

24

20

24

25

35

18

14

28

43

44

43

44

46

48

47

50

50

40

40

41

41

45

49

37

35

48

47

42

22

17

17

17

19

15

15

14

17

23

23

14

20

27

17

27

24

23

21

21

7

4

7

4

7

7

6

6

5

10

10

8

7

6

5

8

6

7

10

5

1

2

1

3

4

3

3

2

4

5

6

1

3

2

1

2

3

3

3

3

2

4

4

3

2

2

3

4

4

4

2

4

2

2

6

4

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Councils asked group: 13

Business and community development and tourism importance

85

2020 business/development/tourism importance (index scores)

77

73

75

73

74

73

71

71

76

70

69

65

74

71

71

69

68

71

71

68

60

72

65

66

75

74

75

74

74

78

72

73

69

73

73

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

78

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

71

67q

Women

65+

East Ward

Hindmarsh

North Ward

50-64

Small Rural

West Ward

18-34

35-49

Men

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Business and community development and tourism importance

86

2020 business/development/tourism importance (%)

32

29

21

27

21

30

35

34

30

28

37

31

37

32

31

39

40

44

44

38

41

36

40

40

38

41

37

30

36

47

21

24

26

25

30

23

20

22

22

25

17

24

25

24

17

4

5

6

1

8

4

5

3

5

6

3

6

7

6

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5

Business and community development and tourism performance

87

2020 business/development/tourism performance (index scores)

65

65

65

61

64

63

63

61

61

59

59

61

68

63

62

58

66

61

57

60

59

59

55

58

56

63

64

59

61

61

63

61

59

64

61

59

59

60

62

52

64

58

57

60

56

61

57

52

61

61

60

57

65

59

54

61

56

63

60

54

59

63

62

58

67

61

58

62

59

n/a

63

58

60

57

56

55

61

57

55

62

57

n/a

58

56

59

55

53

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

62

53

n/a

55

51

76p

63

63

62

61

61

60

59

59

58q

54q

51q

18-34

Women

65+

North Ward

West Ward

Hindmarsh

East Ward

State-wide

Men

Small Rural

35-49

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Business and community development and tourism performance

88

2020 business/development/tourism performance (%)

16

15

13

15

8

10

12

10

6

10

11

19

8

20

13

20

40

10

5

15

31

36

35

33

33

34

36

32

31

32

31

33

38

26

32

29

35

30

25

33

29

31

29

27

37

33

31

32

34

32

32

27

28

30

26

31

8

33

33

34

13

9

9

11

10

13

12

14

16

11

13

11

16

13

15

12

11

13

26

7

5

4

6

6

5

3

3

5

6

4

5

6

2

6

6

3

3

10

2

4

6

5

7

9

7

7

5

7

6

12

8

4

9

6

9

4

3

3

9

8

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

2013 Hindmarsh

2012 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Councils asked group: 7

Planning and building permits importance

89

2020 planning and building permits importance (index scores)

67

71

66

70

65

65

63

63

65

58

58

60

66

71

63

68

59

65

61

57

63

60

59

57

67

72

67

68

64

67

64

61

66

61

59

61

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72p

71p

68

68p

66

66

65

65

64

64

62

59q

Women

State-wide

65+

Small Rural

East Ward

West Ward

Hindmarsh

18-34

50-64

North Ward

35-49

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 3Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning and building permits importance

90

2020 planning and building permits importance (%)

19

15

15

14

27

21

16

23

18

12

26

22

15

19

19

39

33

34

36

38

39

41

38

38

37

41

34

38

34

44

26

37

31

34

25

27

22

22

31

30

23

30

27

29

23

11

9

13

6

6

8

15

12

9

15

7

12

15

12

9

3

2

4

3

1

3

2

4

2

4

1

3

3

3

2

2

4

3

6

3

3

4

1

2

1

3

2

3

3

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 3

Planning and building permits performance

91

2020 planning and building permits performance (index scores)

57

50

53

48

50

46

54

52

44

57

48

46

62

57

54

49

54

55

60

52

52

51

51

51

52

53

54

51

54

55

57

51

57

54

51

53

50

42

50

44

47

52

49

50

41

46

50

46

61

55

54

49

53

56

57

54

51

46

53

48

62

53

54

51

53

57

56

53

51

50

n/a

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62p

56

53

52

52

52

51

51

50

48

46q

42q

18-34

North Ward

65+

Men

Hindmarsh

West Ward

Women

State-wide

35-49

East Ward

Small Rural

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 7Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning and building permits performance

92

2020 planning and building permits performance (%)

5

8

7

7

3

5

6

6

4

3

4

7

7

4

15

5

1

4

24

20

25

22

17

22

20

22

18

30

21

23

23

26

31

23

18

25

26

28

27

28

22

22

27

27

26

22

24

29

30

21

26

33

24

23

12

14

12

12

11

11

11

14

16

12

18

9

13

11

3

17

20

9

9

10

7

6

10

7

5

8

12

4

8

12

9

9

9

8

11

8

24

21

22

25

38

33

31

22

24

29

25

20

18

29

16

13

26

32

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

2016 Hindmarsh

2015 Hindmarsh

2014 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 7

Roadside slashing and weed control performance

93

2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)

63

56

56

54

56

56

56

55

54

55

59

51

65

67

57

54

54

55

51

54

50

47

48

44

54

63

57

54

53

53

49

51

51

52

52

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58p

57p

52

51

50

49

49

48

46

45

45

44

18-34

West Ward

Women

65+

Hindmarsh

State-wide

Men

Small Rural

50-64

35-49

East Ward

North Ward


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 3Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Roadside slashing and weed control performance

94

2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)

7

12

9

13

9

9

6

5

9

4

10

10

3

6

8

27

29

34

29

27

24

19

22

33

28

25

37

23

26

24

32

34

25

25

28

31

38

31

31

34

30

30

37

26

35

17

13

19

17

19

19

16

21

15

17

16

15

10

25

16

12

8

10

13

15

15

19

16

6

13

11

6

20

14

10

5

3

3

3

2

3

2

5

6

4

6

3

7

3

7

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Councils asked group: 3

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

95

2020 unsealed roads importance (index scores)

83

85

82

79

84

83

79

84

84

82

85

80

84

80

81

80

85

82

84

83

79

84

81

80

82

81

80

81

82

79

78

79

77

81

75

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

87

87

85

85

85

85

84

84

83

83

83

80q

North Ward

35-49

Men

East Ward

50-64

Hindmarsh

18-34

Women

65+

Small Rural

West Ward

State-wide


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 3Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

96

2020 unsealed roads importance (%)

54

47

44

39

42

51

64

52

50

55

53

53

60

58

49

31

38

40

42

37

32

22

34

33

31

31

26

30

28

35

11

13

13

15

17

14

7

11

12

9

12

13

8

10

11

2

1

1

1

2

2

4

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

3

1

2

2

6

3

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+




Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 3

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

97

2020 unsealed roads performance (index scores)

49

51

44

48

46

43

46

46

46

44

42

43

41

43

43

39

45

40

42

39

40

45

43

43

49

46

44

43

50

43

46

43

40

50

54

43

n/a

n/a

43

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

47

46

44

43

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

37

East Ward

65+

State-wide

18-34

Women

Small Rural

Hindmarsh

Men

North Ward

West Ward

35-49

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 9Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

98

2020 unsealed roads performance (%)

5

4

6

7

5

5

1

7

6

3

7

8

5

2

5

16

24

16

21

20

19

20

17

13

15

17

14

18

11

18

34

32

30

30

30

31

35

40

31

39

29

30

32

33

38

26

23

28

23

21

23

23

23

30

26

26

33

20

34

21

14

12

16

13

17

17

17

10

15

13

15

12

23

16

10

5

5

4

7

6

5

4

4

6

3

6

3

2

3

9

2020 Hindmarsh

2019 Hindmarsh

2018 Hindmarsh

2017 Hindmarsh

State-wide

Small Rural

North Ward

East Ward

West Ward

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 9

Detailed demographics

99

Gender and age profile

100

2020 gender

2020 age

Men50%

Women50%

Hindmarsh

5%13%

19%

23%

39%

Hindmarsh

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Men50%

Women50%

Small Rural

Men49%

Women51%

State-wide

4%14%

20%

22%

40%

Small Rural

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

6%

19%

23%19%

32%

State-wide

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+


S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Councils asked group: 18 Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences

101

Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.

Appendix A:Index Scores

SCALE CATEGORIES

% RESULTINDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

60


102

SCALE CATEGORIES

% RESULTINDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same

40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

56

Demographic

Actual survey sample

size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error

at 95% confidence

interval

Hindmarsh Shire Council

400 400 +/-4.7

Men 183 201 +/-7.1

Women 217 199 +/-6.5

North Ward 94 96 +/-10.1

East Ward 123 112 +/-8.8

West Ward 183 192 +/-7.1

18-34 years 35 75 +/-16.7

35-49 years 60 76 +/-12.7

50-64 years 112 93 +/-9.2

65+ years 193 156 +/-6.9

The sample size for the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Hindmarsh Shire Council was n=400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately n=400 interviews is +/-4.7% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.3% - 54.7%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 4,600 people aged 18 years or over for Hindmarsh Shire Council, according to ABS estimates.

Appendix A: Margins of error


103

Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing green () and downward directing red arrows ().

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than the overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in green and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2019. Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is significantly higher than the result achieved among this group in 2019.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is significantly lower than the result achieved among this group in 2019.

Appendix A:Significant difference reporting notation

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)


104

58

54

57

58

60

66

67

65+

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Hindmarsh

18-34

State-wide

Appendix A: Index score significant difference calculation

The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))

Where:

• $1 = Index Score 1

• $2 = Index Score 2

• $3 = unweighted sample count 1

• $4 = unweighted sample count 2

• $5 = standard deviation 1

• $6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are significantly different.


105

Appendix B: Further project information

106

Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section including:

• Background and objectives

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Detailed survey tabulations

Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied Excel file.

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email: [email protected]

Appendix B:Further information


107

The 2020 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

• 2020, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 30th January – 22nd March.

• 2019, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.





• 2014, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


• 2012, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate representation of the age and gender profile of the Hindmarsh Shire Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Hindmarsh Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Hindmarsh Shire Council as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 60% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within Hindmarsh Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Hindmarsh Shire Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 30th January – 22nd March, 2020.

Appendix B:Survey methodology and sampling


108

All participating councils are listed in the State-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2020, 62 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating across 2012-2020 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Hindmarsh Shire Council is classified as a Small Rural council according to the following classification list:

• Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large Rural & Small Rural.

Councils participating in the Small Rural group are:

• Alpine, Ararat, Benalla, Buloke, Central Goldfields, Gannawarra, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Indigo, Loddon, Mansfield, Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees, Queenscliffe, Strathbogie, West Wimmera and Yarriambiack.

Wherever appropriate, results for Hindmarsh Shire Council for this 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the Small Rural group and on a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within the reported charts.

Appendix B:Analysis and reporting


109

The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

• The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

• As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to the known population distribution of Hindmarsh Shire Council according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

• The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2020 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

Appendix B:2012 survey revision


110

Core, optional and tailored questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised:

• Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

• Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

• Community consultation and engagement (Consultation)

• Decisions made in the interest of the community (Making community decisions)

• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

• Rating of contact (Customer service)

• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.

Appendix B:Core, optional and tailored questions


111

Appendix B:Analysis and reporting

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the State government is supplied with this State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed, which is available at:

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.


112

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2020 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

Statewide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Appendix B:Glossary of terms


113

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us03 8685 8555

John [email protected]

Katrina CoxDirector of Client [email protected]

Follow us@JWSResearch

Mark ZukerManaging [email protected]

j00858 css 2020 hindmarsh shire council report

Documents