Manawatū District CouncilAnnual Residents’ Survey 2019/20

Annual Residents’ SurveyReport | September 2020

Presentation overview1. Objectives and method summary

2. Satisfaction results 

3. Areas for improvement

4. Perceptions of Council’s performance

5. Thoughts about methodology

Annual Residents’ SurveyReport | September 2020

Objectives and method summaryOBJECTIVES• To measure residents’ satisfaction with the Manawatū District Council’s performance

• To provide insights into how Council can best invest its resources to improve residents’ satisfaction with its overall performance

METHOD• Telephone survey• Total of 448 residents (112 in October, December, March, June) • Quota targets based on age, gender, ward and ethnicity.• Weighted to represent population demographics (2018 Census).

Satisfaction scale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Satisfied Very Satisfied

Headlines:• All of the overall score categories achieved more than 60% in the satisfied range• Of the 23 subcategories, 13 achieved more than 71% 

Satisfaction results ‐ Services and facilities

OVERALL SERVICES AND FACILITIES   ‐ 89%3 Waters 78%Roading and footpaths 76%Waste and rubbish disposal 86%Regulatory 71%Community Facilities 93%Parks and Reserves 95%

Satisfaction results ‐ Regulatory

OVERALL REGULATORY   ‐ 71%Licensing premises 76%Animal control 75%Managing liquor licencing 75%Managing and issuing building consents 48%Managing and issuing resource consents 55%

Satisfaction results ‐ Customer interactions

OVERALL CUSTOMER INTERACTIONS – 61%Ease of making an enquiry or request 73%How well staff understood the request 67%The resolution or outcome achieved 54%Accuracy of information provided 61%Length of time it took to resolve the matter 48%

Satisfaction results – Value for money

OVERALL VALUE FOR MONEY   ‐ 64%The ease of making payments 95%Fees for other services being fair and reasonable

69%

Rates being fair and reasonable 59%

Satisfaction results – Other services 

COMMUNITY FUNDINGOverall community funding and development services

54%

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTOverall economic development services 65%

COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENTOverall communication 72%

CIVIL DEFENCEPreparing for/responding to CD emergencies 76/80%

Areas for improvement<60%

Roading and footpaths (76%)

‐ Adequacy of cycleways on our roads 57%

Regulatory (71%)

‐Managing and issuing building consents 48%

‐Managing and issuing resource consents 55%

Customer interaction (61%)

‐ Resolution or outcome achieved 54%

‐ Length of time it took to resolve the matter 48%

Value for money (64%)

‐ Rates fair and reasonable 59%

Other services

‐ It is easy to find out what funding is available 50%

‐ It is easy to access funding for events 46%

Services and Facilities, Financial Management, Vision and leadership, Trust

Parks and reserves, Regulatory

Rates being fair and reasonable

Reputation

Overall performance

Overall services and facilities

Value for money

59%

20%

21%

Perceptions of Council’s performance

78% satisfied

Annual Residents’ SurveyReport | September 2020

1.2.3.

Sample: n=323; Excludes ‘don’t know’ responses to any of the reputation questionsSegments have been determined using the results from a set of five overall level questionsREP1 leadership, REP2 trust, REP3 financial management, OVLSV quality of deliverables, REP5 overall reputation

Reputation profile Partiality(emotional)

• • View Council as competent• Have a positive emotional

connection

Have a positiveemotional connectionBelieve performancecould be better

•

Proficiency(factual)

Pragmatists• Fact based, not influenced

by emotional considerationsEvaluate performance favourablyRate trust and leadership poorly

•• Do not value or recognise performance

• Have doubts and mistrust

2019•

NOTES:

5% 61%

27% 7%

6%Sceptics34%

Admirers4%

Champions55%

Annual Residents’ SurveyReport | September 2020

NOTES:1.2.3.

Sample: n=323; Excludes ‘don’t know’ responses to any of the reputation questionsSegments have been determined using the results from a set of five overall level questionsREP1 leadership, REP2 trust, REP3 financial management, OVLSV quality of deliverables, REP5 overall reputation

Reputation profile: Wards

n = 69 n = 63 n = 191

Admirers Admirers Admirers

PragmatistsPragmatists Pragmatists

Champions47%

7%

Sceptics37%

9%

Champions45%

2%

Sceptics48%

5%

Champions63%

4%

Sceptics27%

6%

FeildingSouthern WardNorthern Ward

Thoughts about survey methodology

MODE?‐ Landline ‐ Cell phone‐ Online‐ Face to face‐ Paper 

TIMING?‐ Quarterly‐ Once a year‐ Continuous

Single method mixed method?