survey methodology and sampling - local …...3 j00415 community satisfaction survey 2016...

2

J00415 Community Satisfaction Survey 2016 – State-wide Research Report

Background and objectives Survey methodology and sampling Further information Key findings & recommendations Summary of findings Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance• Key core measure: Customer service• Key core measure: Council direction indicators• Positives and areas for improvement• Communications• Individual service areas• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Further project information

3


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout local government areas in Victoria. This coordinated approach allows for far more cost effective surveying than would be possible if councils commissioned surveys individually.

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.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the performance of councils throughout Victoria across a range of measures and to seek insight into ways to provide improved or more effective service delivery. The survey also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of their statutory reporting requirements, as well as acting as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

4


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in each participating council area.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of each council area as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within councils, particularly younger people.

A total of n=28,108 completed interviews were achieved State-wide. Survey fieldwork was conducted between 1st February – 30th March, 2016.

The 2016 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

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

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

• 2015, n=28,316 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=29,501 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.

5


Within tables and index score charts throughout this report, statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are represented by upward directing blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance when noted indicates a statistically significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result across all councils for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below: The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than for the overall result for the councils.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2015. 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 2015.

54

57

60

65

50-64

35-49

Overall

18-34

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: For details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences, please refer to Appendix A.

6


Further InformationFurther information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix A, including: Background and objectives Margins of error Analysis and reporting Glossary of terms

ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

8


Performance on almost all core and individual service measures decreased slightlyover the past year. In most instances, results declined by only one or two index points; with measures only a few points from historical highs. Performance on each of the core measures of Community Consultation (index score of 54),

Advocacy/Lobbying (53) and Overall Council Direction (51) decreased by two index points in the past year. All other core measures decreased by one index point.

There were only three instances (out of 27) where individual service areas declined more than one or two points (these are detailed later in this summary).

There were three individual service areas that maintained their 2015 rating (Community and Cultural Activities, Business and Community Development and Tourism Development) and one service area (Slashing and Weed Control) that improved on its 2015 result by one point.

Examining core measures specifically, declines occurred across most regional groups (Small Rural, Large Rural, and Regional Centres). That said, performance ratings for Metropolitan councils are those that are the most consistent with 2015 results compared to other regions, only declining slightly on a couple, but not all, core measures.

Compared to other regions of the State, Metropolitan followed by Interface councils perform best on core measures. Large Rural councils rate the lowest. (Small Rural and Regional Centres councils fall between the three on ratings scales.)

9


Interface councils tend to perform less well on individual service areas beyond the core measures, joining Large Rural councils near the lower end of the ratings scale.

Generationally, the youngest cohort of residents – 18 to 34 year-olds – universally rate councils higher on core measures than their older counterparts. Residents aged 50 to 64 years tend to rate councils lower (residents aged 35 to 49 years and 65+ years fall between the other two groups on all core measures).

The State-wide Overall Performance index score of 59 represents a one point decline on the 2015 result; performance is two points from the State’s 2014 high score of 61. Almost all demographic and geographic groups rated Overall Performance within one or two points of 2015 ratings. The exception was Regional Centres, where residents rated their councils, on average, three index points lower than last year (58 to 55). It is important to note that perceptions of performance are largely positive to neutral, with only

a small percentage of the population rating councils negatively. A plurality (45%) of residents rate their council’s Overall Performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ and 36% as ‘average’ compared with only 16% who rate their council’s performance as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’.

10


On average, Large Rural councils (54) perform lower on Overall Performance than other council groups, while Metropolitan councils perform higher (66; noting other scores were 61 among Interface councils, 57 among Small Rural councils and 55 among Regional Centres).

As with other core measures, on average residents aged 18 to 34 rate their respective councils higher for Overall Performance (62) than other age groups. Residents aged 50 to 64 years rate them lower (55; with an index score of 59 among residents aged 65+ years and an index score of 57 among residents aged 35 to 49 years).

Overall Council Direction declined two points in 2016 (to an index score of 51). Although it is the core measure rated lowest across the State, most residents believe their council’s performance stayed the same over the past year (62%). Almost one in five (18%) believe that their council’s direction has improved in 2016 (down 2% from 2015); while 15% say their council’s direction has deteriorated (down 2% from 2015).

Residents are largely positive in their future outlook. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of residents believe that their council is heading in the right direction, compared with the fewer than one in five (18%) who believe that their council’s direction has deteriorated in 2016.

11


Regardless, nine in 10 residents believe their council has room for improvement (40% ‘a lot of room for improvement’ and 48% ‘a little room improvement’). Only 7% do not believe there is room for their council to improve its performance.

Across the State, councils seem to be struggling to communicate advocacy efforts to residents. Lobbying (53) rates just above Council Direction and elicits higher levels of ‘don’t know’ responses than other core measures (22%). Significant proportions of residents are therefore not hearing what councils are doing in this area, particularly the oldest cohort of residents (26% ‘don’t know’ response among residents aged 65+ years).

Of the core measures, councils perform best State-wide when it comes to Customer Service (index score of 69, a one point decline since 2015). Customer Service in 2016 is three points from its 2014 high score of 72. Three in 10 residents (30%) rate Council’s Customer Service as ‘very good’, with a further 36% rating Customer Service as ‘good’ (17% ‘average’ and 14% ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’), just two percentage points behind the 2015 result.

12


On the whole, councils improved in the quality of their social media usage. Residents who contacted their council through social media in the past year (3% of the population) rate the quality of their contact eight points higher than in 2015 (index score of 74 for Customer Service).

Telephone (32%) and in-person enquiries (29%) remain the most popular methods for contacting councils. This was followed by contacting council by email (12%) and then in writing (12%). Virtually no-one uses text messaging (1%) to communicate with councils.

Across the State, councils perform well on a majority of individual service areas tested. Of the 27 services evaluated in 2016, at a State-wide level councils received positive ratings (an index score of 60 or higher) on 14 of them. Only one measure scores negatively (a sub 50 score) – Unsealed Roads (43). As mentioned previously, ratings for individual service areas all decreased by one or two

points in the past year. Planning and Building Permits (50, down four points), Population Growth (51, down three points) and Law Enforcement (63, down three points) each declined by a slightly higher degree.

Community and Cultural Activities (69), Tourism Development (63), Business and Community Development (60) and Slashing and Weed Control (56) all remained constant between years.

13


At a State-wide level, councils tend to perform best in the individual service areas of Art Centres and Libraries (72), Appearance of Public Areas (71), Waste Management (70), Emergency and Disaster Management (69), Recreational Facilities (69) and Community and Cultural Activities (69).

Performance is weakest on Unsealed Roads (43), Planning and Building Permits (50), Population Growth (51) and Town Planning Policy (52). This is in addition to the core measures of Lobbying (53), Community Decisions (54), Consultation (54) and Sealed Roads.

Consistent with 2015, Unsealed Roads (-36), Community Decisions (-26), Population Growth (-25) and Maintenance of Sealed Roads (-24) remain the service areas with the highest disparity between rated importance and performance.

14


In general, the State and local councils should pay attention to service areas where residents stated importance exceeds rated performance by 10 points or more – this applies to 19 of 27 individual service areas measured. Areas where stated importance exceeds performance by 20 points or higher include: Maintenance of unsealed roads (margin of 36 points) Making decisions in the interest of the community (margin of 26 points) Planning for population growth (margin of 25 points) Maintenance of sealed roads (margin of 24 points) Consultation and engagement (margin of 21 points) Town planning policy (margin of 21 points) Planning permits (margin of 21 points) Condition of local streets and footpaths (margin of 20 points).

15


Councils looking to improve their performance could also look to improving the services deemed most important to residents. At a State-wide level, residents rate the following services as most important to their general satisfaction (individual councils may need to personalise this list depending on local, relevant results): Emergency and disaster management (importance index score of 80) Waste management (80, down one point from 2015) Community decisions (80, consistent with 2015) Unsealed roads (79, up one point from 2015) Elderly support services (78, consistent with 2015) Sealed local roads (78, up two points from 2015) Local streets and footpaths (77, consistent with 2015).

Across the state, residents are most likely to cite sealed road maintenance (13%), community consultation (9%), communication (9%) and financial management (6%) as the key areas for improvement for their local council.

Conversely, residents are most likely to believe parks and gardens (10%), recreational/ sporting facilities (8%), city councillors (7%) and customer service (6%) are the best aspects of their local council.

16


Councils should also be aware of what services individuals use most often because a personal experience of a service can have an effect on ratings of performance. The most used services are Waste Management, Parking Facilities, Public Areas, Recreational Facilities and Local Streets and Footpaths.

Residents of Victoria continue to want their local council to communicate with them through council newsletters. Print newsletters sent via mail (39%) are more popular than newsletters sent via email (24%). Residents both under and over the age of 50 prefer council newsletters be sent via mail (37% among residents under 50 and 41% among residents over 50) rather than email (27% and 21% respectively).

In keeping with 2015 results, and as alluded to earlier, residents aged 18 to 34 and residents of Metropolitan councils are generally the most satisfied resident groups, rating councils highest on both core and individual service areas. By contrast, residents of Large Rural and Interface councils tend to be the least satisfied with services, as are residents aged 50 to 64 years.

17


An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better understand the profile of these over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and data interrogation, or self-mining the SPSS data provided or via the dashboard portal available.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended responses are generic summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses, with a view to the responses of the key gender and age groups, especially any target groups identified.

18


• Slashing & Weed ControlHigher results in 2016

• All core and most individual service areasLower results in 2016

• 18-34 year olds• Metropolitan residents

Most favourably disposed towards their council

• 50-64 year olds• Large Rural residents

Least favourably disposed towards their

council

• Community and Cultural Activities• Tourism Development• Business and Community Development

Maintained results in 2016

20


Performance Measures Overall2012

Overall2013

Overall2014

Overall2015

Overall2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 60 60 61 60 59COMMUNITYCONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

57 57 57 56 54

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

55 55 56 55 53

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

n/a n/a 57 55 54

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) n/a n/a 55 55 54

CUSTOMER SERVICE 71 71 72 70 69

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 53 53 53 51

21


Performance Measures Overall 2016 vs Overall2015 Highest score Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 59 1 point lower Metropolitan Large Rural

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement)

54 2 points lower Metropolitan 50-64 year olds

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 53 2 points lower 18-34 year olds Large Rural,

50-64 year olds

MAKING COMMUNITYDECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community)

54 1 point lower Metropolitan Large Rural, 50-64 year olds

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 54 1 point lower Metropolitan Large Rural

CUSTOMER SERVICE 69 1 point lower Metropolitan Large Rural, Men

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 51 2 points lower 18-34 year olds Large Rural,

50-64 year olds

22


9

8

5

7

11

30

36

29

23

29

33

36

36

32

31

33

28

17

11

15

13

14

16

8

5

7

5

8

11

6

2

10

22

10

1

2

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Key Measures Summary Results

18 62 15 5Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

23


Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14

8683

7970

6965

615656

5248

2624

2222

2019

1715151515

1312

106

8380

7865

685758

5552

5044

23212120

1817

15141413

119

109

4

Waste managementParking facilities

The appearance of public areasRecreational facilities

The condition of local streets and footpathsArt centres and libraries

Condition of sealed local roadsTraffic management

Informing the communityMaintenance of unsealed roads in your area

Community & cultural activitiesEnvironmental sustainability

Community consultation and engagementBusiness & community development & tourism

Enforcement of local lawsDecisions made in the interest of the community

Council’s general town planning policyPlanning and building permits

Business & community developmentTourism development

Planning for population growthFamily support servicesElderly support services

Lobbying on behalf of the communityEmergency & disaster management

Disadvantaged support services

Total household usePersonal use

%

Experience of Services

24


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

Service Importance Performance Net differentialMaintenance of unsealed roads 79 43 -36Making decisions in the interest of the community

80 54 -26

Planning for population growth 76 51 -25

Maintenance of sealed roads 78 54 -24

Consultation & engagement 75 54 -21

Town planning policy 73 52 -21

Planning and building permits 71 50 -21

Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57 -20

Informing the community 76 59 -17

Slashing & weed control 73 56 -17

25


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

Service Importance Performance Net differentialLobbying on behalf of the community 69 53 -16

Parking facilities 70 56 -14

Traffic management 72 59 -13

Disadvantaged support services 73 61 -12

Emergency & disaster management 80 69 -11

Elderly support services 78 68 -10

Waste management 80 70 -10

Environmental sustainability 73 63 -10

Business & community development 70 60 -10

26


Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

807980787976777575747373737273737271717169706967656562

807979787977777575747373757272727270717069707067666562

8079n/a8179n/a7875757374727473737372727171n/a71706766n/a62

8078n/a8080n/a7775757373717172737372737170n/a71706666n/a62

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Priority Area Importance808080

797878

777676

7574

737373737373

7271

707070

6967

6663

62

Emergency & disaster mngtWaste management

Community decisionsUnsealed roads

Elderly support servicesSealed roads

Local streets & footpathsInforming the community

Population growthConsultation & engagementAppearance of public areas

Environmental sustainabilitySlashing & weed control

Town planning policyFamily support services

Disadvantaged support serv.Recreational facilities

Traffic managementPlanning & building permits

Enforcement of local lawsBusiness & community dev.

Parking facilitiesLobbying

Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural

27


737272707069696766646362616061605857555655555554545445

757273717170706866646464626262605857555755575655545345

73717170706969676564n/a6262n/a616058575657n/an/a5555545544

73717270706869676564n/a6362n/a605857566157n/an/a5554525446

2015 2014 2013 2012

7271

70696969

6866

636363

616060

5959

575656

545454

5352

5150

43

Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas

Waste managementEmergency & disaster mngt

Recreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural

Elderly support servicesFamily support services

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Tourism developmentDisadvantaged support serv.Bus/community dev./tourismBusiness & community dev.

Informing the communityTraffic management

Local streets & footpathsParking facilities

Slashing & weed controlConsultation & engagement

Sealed roadsCommunity decisions

LobbyingTown planning policy

Population growthPlanning & building permits

Unsealed roads

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences

2016 Priority Area Performance

28


Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)

Overall

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Waste management

3. Community decisions

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Elderly support services

Interface


2. Waste management

3. Local streets & footpaths

Regional Centres



3. Waste management

Large Rural


2. Unsealed roads3. Elderly support

services

Small Rural



3. Sealed roads

Bottom Three Most Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)

Overall

1. Community & cultural

2. Tourism development

3. Art centres & libraries

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community dev./tourism


3. Slashing & weed control

Interface



3. Bus/community dev./tourism

Regional Centres



3. Lobbying

Large Rural




Small Rural

1. Traffic management



29


Top Three Most Performance Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)

Bottom Three Most Performance Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)

Overall


2. Appearance of public areas

3. Waste management

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Recreational facilities

Interface

1. Waste management



Regional Centres




Large Rural




Small Rural




Overall

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Population

growth

Metropolitan

1. Planning permits

2. Population growth

3. Town planning policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Town planning

policy

Regional Centres


2. Lobbying3. Consultation &

engagement

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Population

growth

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Town planning

policy 3. Planning

permits

30


Importance and Performance2016 Index Scores Grid

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 75 54Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 53

Making community decisions 80 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 54

Informing the community 76 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57

Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 56Enforcement of local laws 70 63Family support services 73 66Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 73 61

Recreational facilities 73 69Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 66 72Community & cultural activities 62 69

Waste management 80 70Business & community development & tourism 67 60

Town planning policy 73 52Planning permits 71 50Environmental sustainability 73 63Emergency & disastermanagement 80 69

Planning for pop. growth 76 51Slashing & weed control 73 56Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 43

Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 63 63

0

50

100

0 50 100

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

31


Importance and Performance2016 Index Scores Grid

(Magnified view)

Note: The larger the circle, the larger the gap between importance and performance.Base: All respondents

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 75 54Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 53

Making community decisions 80 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 54

Informing the community 76 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57

Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 56Enforcement of local laws 70 63Family support services 73 66Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 73 61

Recreational facilities 73 69Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 66 72Community & cultural activities 62 69

Waste management 80 70Business & community development & tourism 67 60

Town planning policy 73 52Planning permits 71 50Environmental sustainability 73 63Emergency & disastermanagement 80 69

Planning for pop. growth 76 51Slashing & weed control 73 56Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 43

Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 63 63

40

90

40 90

32


BES

T TH

ING

SAR

EAS FOR

IMPR

OVEM

ENT

-Parks and gardens-Recreational/sporting facilities-Councillors-Customer service

-Sealed road maintenance-Community consultation-Communication-Financial management

33


• Newsletter sent via mail (39)Overall preferred forms of communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (41)Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (37)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (up 2 points)• Advertising in local newspaper (down 2 points)• Council newsletter as an insert in a local newspaper (down 2 points)

Greatest changes since 2015

36


2016 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of 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: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

67

64

62

61

60

61

59

59

59

58

57

56

n/a

65

n/a

62

61

62

60

n/a

59

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

60

61

60

n/a

59

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

60

61

59

n/a

58

n/a

57

n/a

2015 2014 2013 2012

66

62

61

60

59

59

58

57

57

55

55

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

Overall

65+

Men

Small Rural

35-49

Regional Centres

50-64

Large Rural

37


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of 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: 69

9

10

11

10

9

14

10

8

7

9

9

10

10

8

7

11

36

39

40

40

40

47

39

32

30

35

36

37

44

35

32

34

36

35

35

35

36

29

36

39

41

38

36

37

32

38

40

37

11

10

9

10

9

6

9

13

15

11

12

10

8

12

14

10

5

4

4

4

4

2

4

7

7

6

6

4

4

6

6

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

2016 Overall Performance

39


• 59%, down 2 points on 2015 Overall contact with Overall

• Aged 35-64 years• Interface, Small Rural Shires Most contact with Overall

• Regional Centres• Aged 18-34 years Least contact with Overall

• Index score of 69, down 1 point on 2015 Customer Service rating

• Metropolitan• Women • Aged 65+ years

Most satisfied with Customer Service

• Men• Large Rural

Least satisfied with Customer Service

40


61

39

61

39

60

40

61

39

59

41

TOTAL HAVE HAD CONTACT

TOTAL HAVE HAD NO CONTACT

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Method of Contact

%

Q5/5a. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with 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: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

41


35

32

13

14

9

3

2

39

30

15

16

12

2

1

37

29

14

16

11

2

1

36

34

13

18

12

1

1

32

29

12

12

8

3

1

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Method of Contact

%Q5a. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with council in any of the following ways? 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 who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked State-wide: 17 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

42


40

33

10

10

5

2

0

44

28

10

11

5

2

0

42

29

9

12

6

1

0

38

34

9

12

6

1

0

38

34

11

9

5

3

0

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Most Recent Contact

%

43


73

72

72

72

71

70

70

70

70

69

67

68

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

71

70

71

n/a

70

n/a

72

74

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

70

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

70

n/a

69

73

72

71

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

67

Metropolitan

Women

65+

Interface

Regional Centres

Overall

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

18-34

Large Rural

Men

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Customer Service Rating 2015 2014 2013 2012

44


30

31

32

31

31

34

31

31

27

30

26

34

26

30

30

35

36

37

38

38

37

38

38

36

36

35

38

35

39

37

36

34

17

17

16

17

17

16

16

17

19

18

18

17

18

17

18

16

8

8

7

7

8

6

7

8

9

9

9

7

8

8

9

8

6

6

5

5

5

5

7

6

7

6

8

5

6

7

6

6

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 69

2016 Customer Service Rating

45


73

77

68

66

75

66

79

75

77

70

69

74

73

82

72

74

68

68

73

75

61

73

75

73

69

75

79

68

71

74

69

62

76

74

79*

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Customer Service Rating

46


33

39

28

15

27

33

36

36

34

36

38

46

41

50

14

14

20

29

16

17

11

8

6

7

7

4

5

6

6

6

6

3

3

2

1

2

5

8

1

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message*


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 17 *Caution: small sample size < n=30

2016 Customer Service Rating

48


• 62% stayed about the same, down 1 point on 2015• 18% improved, down 2 points on 2015• 15% deteriorated, up 2 points on 2015

Council Direction from Q6

• Aged 18-34 years• Metropolitan

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

• Aged 50-64 years• Large Rural

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

• 40% a lot of room for improvement• 48% little room for improvement• 7% not much room for improvement

Improvement from Q7

• 68% right direction (20% definitely and 48% probably)• 18% wrong direction (9% probably and 9% definitely)Direction Headed from Q8

• 31% prefer rate rise, down 2 points on 2015• 50% prefer service cuts, up 2 points on 2015

Rates vs Services Trade-Off from Q10

49


58

56

54

55

53

53

52

53

53

51

51

51

57

n/a

n/a

55

53

n/a

52

54

n/a

51

n/a

50

57

n/a

n/a

54

53

n/a

52

55

n/a

51

n/a

50

56

n/a

n/a

52

52

n/a

51

53

n/a

49

n/a

48

56

55

54

52

51

51

51

51

50

49

48

48

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

65+

Small Rural

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Overall Direction 2015 2014 2013 2012

50


18

20

20

19

18

20

19

21

15

17

17

18

21

15

15

18

62

63

63

63

64

65

64

55

61

62

61

62

63

64

60

59

15

13

13

13

15

10

11

20

19

16

16

14

10

16

19

16

5

5

5

5

4

6

6

4

5

6

5

6

5

5

5

6

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69

2016 Overall Direction

51


40

47

41

46

47

35

56

39

40

39

32

42

45

42

48

44

50

46

45

51

36

52

47

49

55

49

45

42

7

7

5

5

5

9

3

7

8

7

8

4

7

10

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

4

1

3

3

3

2

2

4

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 5

2016 Room for Improvement

52


20

20

21

19

18

20

11

24

27

21

22

19

20

19

19

24

48

49

52

50

49

50

44

48

52

44

45

51

55

47

44

45

9

10

9

10

11

9

10

9

6

10

9

8

7

10

11

8

9

10

8

10

12

8

13

9

5

10

10

8

6

10

13

8

14

11

10

10

10

13

22

10

10

14

14

13

13

14

13

15

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely 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: 9

2016 Future Direction

53


10

10

11

11

11

12

8

9

8

10

12

9

12

9

9

10

21

23

25

25

29

22

21

21

18

21

19

22

24

22

20

17

22

22

24

22

22

23

18

19

22

22

21

22

24

22

20

21

28

26

23

24

22

24

32

31

33

26

29

27

23

28

30

31

19

18

17

18

16

18

21

20

20

21

19

20

17

19

20

21

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%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: 21

2016 Rate Rise v Service Cut

55


13

9

9

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

9

Sealed Road Maintenance

Community Consultation

Communication

Financial Management

Development - Inappropriate

Rates - Too Expensive

Waste Management

Parking Availability

Traffic Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Nothing

10

8

7

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Councillors

Customer Service

Public Areas

Road/Street Maintenance

Waste Management

Community Facilities

Community Support Services

Generally Good - Overall/NoComplaints

Community/Public Events/Activities

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Q17. What does Overall MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37

2016 Best Aspects 2016 Areas for Improvement

%%

57


Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

39

22

16

15

3

2

3

1

39

21

17

14

3

2

2

1

39

19

18

15

3

2

2

1

42

18

18

15

2

2

2

1

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Best Form

39

24

14

13

4

2

3

1

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent viaemail

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insertin a local newspaper

A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

%

58


Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 23Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

35

25

15

13

5

3

3

0

36

24

16

14

5

2

3

0

37

21

19

14

5

2

3

0

39

21

18

14

3

3

2

1

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Under 50s Best Form

37

27

12

10

5

3

4

1





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

%

59


Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 23Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

42

18

17

18

1

2

2

1

43

18

18

15

1

1

2

1

42

17

18

17

1

1

2

1

46

15

18

16

1

1

2

1

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Over 50s Best Form

41

21

16

15

2

2

3

1





A text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

%

61


78

76

76

75

76

75

74

72

74

72

72

68

77

n/a

76

n/a

76

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

68

77

n/a

75

n/a

74

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

67

77

n/a

75

n/a

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

68

78

77

77

76

76

76

75

75

75

73

73

72

50-64

Small Rural

Women

Large Rural

35-49

65+

Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Consultation and Engagement Importance

62


322928

272727

3131

3434

2835

2634

3830

4142

41434343

4042

4042

4241

3840

4145

2224

25252525242220

1824

2030

2216

18

33444333

32

42423

3

111111

11111

11

1

211111212221111

3

2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan

InterfaceRegional Centres

Large RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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: 25

2016 Consultation and Engagement Importance

63


58

59

57

57

56

56

56

54

54

53

54

53

n/a

60

58

n/a

n/a

58

57

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

n/a

n/a

58

57

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

n/a

n/a

58

57

55

56

n/a

n/a

54

58

57

56

55

55

55

54

54

53

52

52

51

Metropolitan

18-34

Women

Interface

Small Rural

65+

Overall

35-49

Men

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Consultation and Engagement Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

64


8

7

8

8

8

9

7

7

7

8

7

8

7

8

7

9

29

31

32

32

33

31

29

28

26

30

28

29

33

29

26

27

32

32

32

34

33

31

32

32

34

30

32

32

33

32

33

29

15

14

13

13

13

12

14

16

17

15

16

14

12

16

17

15

7

6

5

5

5

4

5

8

9

7

8

6

4

7

9

7

10

9

9

9

8

12

13

9

8

9

9

11

10

9

8

12

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69

2016 Consultation and Engagement Performance

65


72

72

70

71

68

70

69

68

68

67

68

66

73

n/a

71

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

67

n/a

69

67

73

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

69

66

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

68

67

73

71

71

71

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

66

Women

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

Overall

Regional Centres

18-34

Metropolitan

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Lobbying Importance

66


242323232322

25232527

2028

222828

20

3839404041

3838

3837

3837

3838

3636

40

2728

272727

2926

2826

2429

2531

2624

24

666

66

768

74

856

67

7

221212

21

2331123

3

322222323433222

5




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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: 24

2016 Lobbying Importance

67


58

58

56

56

56

57

55

55

55

53

53

53

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

57

56

55

n/a

54

n/a

53

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

57

55

55

n/a

53

n/a

52

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

57

55

55

n/a

53

n/a

52

57

56

55

54

54

54

53

53

52

51

50

50

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Small Rural

Women

65+

Overall

Men

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Lobbying Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

68


5

6

6

6

6

5

6

5

5

6

5

5

6

4

4

6

23

26

27

26

27

24

23

24

21

26

24

23

27

23

21

22

31

32

32

33

33

29

32

35

33

29

31

32

34

32

32

28

13

12

11

12

12

10

10

15

15

12

13

12

9

14

15

12

5

4

4

4

4

3

4

6

7

6

6

5

4

6

7

5

22

20

19

18

17

28

25

15

20

20

21

23

20

20

21

26

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69

2016 Lobbying Performance

69


80

81

80

80

80

82

80

78

78

79

77

n/a

81

79

n/a

80

81

n/a

n/a

78

79

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

82

82

80

80

80

80

79

79

79

79

77

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

65+

Men

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: 15 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Community Decisions Made Importance

70


39

38

37

37

38

45

42

35

43

40

40

41

36

42

42

43

44

42

40

38

43

41

41

41

40

45

14

15

16

14

15

12

14

16

13

15

14

13

14

2

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

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: 15

2016 Community Decisions Made Importance

71


59

59

58

56

55

55

56

54

53

52

52

52

n/a

60

n/a

57

57

58

n/a

56

55

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

58

56

55

54

54

53

53

52

51

50

50

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

Overall

65+

Small Rural

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

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: 69 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Community Decisions Made Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

72


7

7

7

8

7

6

5

7

7

7

8

5

5

8

29

31

33

34

31

27

24

29

28

29

34

28

25

27

33

33

34

30

33

33

35

32

32

33

31

32

35

33

14

14

12

10

12

18

17

14

15

14

11

15

17

14

8

6

5

4

6

10

10

8

9

7

6

9

9

7

10

9

10

14

12

7

8

9

10

11

10

10

9

11

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

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: 69

2016 Community Decisions Made Performance

73


78

77

78

78

78

76

77

75

77

75

73

n/a

n/a

79

79

78

77

79

n/a

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

79

79

78

78

76

76

76

76

Large Rural

Interface

Women

50-64

65+

Overall

35-49

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Sealed Local Roads Importance

74


34

32

33

29

38

30

41

30

38

31

36

37

34

46

44

45

49

43

46

41

47

44

46

44

43

49

16

20

18

18

15

20

14

18

15

19

16

16

14

3

2

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

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: 17

2016 Sealed Local Roads Importance

75


69

60

57

57

55

55

55

55

52

53

52

45

n/a

n/a

59

56

55

n/a

55

55

n/a

54

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

60

58

56

54

54

54

54

52

52

51

44

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

Women

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

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: 69 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Sealed Local Roads Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

76


11

11

12

19

13

10

6

8

11

11

14

10

8

11

33

33

33

45

39

33

23

31

34

32

36

31

30

34

28

29

27

24

28

29

29

30

27

29

25

27

30

29

16

16

17

7

13

17

23

17

16

16

14

17

18

14

11

10

10

3

7

10

19

12

11

11

10

13

13

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

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: 69

2016 Sealed Local Roads Performance

77


78

76

74

76

77

75

76

75

73

75

73

72

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

75

73

75

n/a

71

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

75

n/a

75

73

75

n/a

71

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

75

n/a

75

74

75

n/a

72

79

78

77

77

77

76

76

76

75

75

74

72

Women

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

Overall

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

35-49

Metropolitan

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Informing Community Importance

78


333030303129

3536

3435

2739

3233

3732

4244434444

43403942

4342

424141

4046

20222222

2122

20201917

2416

2221

1918

4333

443433

52

44

33

1111

11

11111

111

1

1

1

1

111

11

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25

2016 Informing Community Importance

79


64

62

62

61

58

61

61

60

60

59

58

56

n/a

63

63

62

n/a

62

65

n/a

62

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

63

62

61

n/a

60

63

n/a

61

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

63

61

60

n/a

58

62

n/a

59

n/a

57

n/a

63

61

60

59

59

59

59

58

58

56

56

55

Metropolitan

18-34

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

65+

Small Rural

Men

Large Rural

50-64

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Informing Community Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

80


12

12

13

12

12

13

9

13

11

11

11

13

12

11

10

13

35

38

40

38

38

40

30

32

32

35

35

36

38

36

32

34

31

31

30

32

31

30

35

33

31

29

30

31

30

30

33

30

13

12

11

11

13

11

16

13

16

13

14

12

12

14

15

13

5

4

4

3

4

3

6

5

7

7

6

5

3

5

7

6

4

2

3

3

2

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

5

4

3

4

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37

2016 Informing Community Performance

81


79

78

77

78

78

77

77

77

78

75

76

75

79

n/a

n/a

78

78

77

n/a

n/a

77

74

n/a

74

81

n/a

n/a

78

79

78

n/a

n/a

78

75

n/a

75

79

n/a

n/a

77

79

77

n/a

n/a

78

74

n/a

74

80

79

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

76

75

74

Women

Interface

Metropolitan

35-49

50-64

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

65+

18-34

Small Rural

Men

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: 27 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Streets and Footpaths Importance

82


34343335

3234

393335

3230

3932

3737

33

434344

4446

4643

4441

4143

4241

4242

45

18191818181814

1918

1921

1522

1716

16

223222

23

24

3232

23

111111

1

21

2111

11

21111

112

4221122




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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: 27

2016 Streets and Footpaths Importance

83


64

62

58

59

59

58

56

58

57

57

55

54

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

57

56

54

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

59

58

n/a

57

57

56

54

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

58

57

n/a

56

57

56

54

n/a

63

60

58

58

58

57

57

57

57

56

55

53

Metropolitan

18-34

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

Overall

Interface

35-49

65+

Women

50-64

Large Rural

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: 34 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Streets and Footpaths Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

84


12

13

13

14

13

16

10

15

11

12

13

12

16

12

9

13

34

34

34

33

34

42

37

33

29

34

35

32

36

34

34

32

28

28

28

28

28

25

27

26

30

28

26

29

26

28

29

29

14

15

15

15

15

11

15

16

16

14

14

15

14

15

15

14

8

7

7

8

9

5

8

8

11

7

8

8

7

9

9

8

3

3

2

1

1

1

3

1

4

5

3

3

2

3

4

4

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


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: 34

2016 Streets and Footpaths Performance

85


74

73

73

71

72

71

72

68

68

68

68

57

n/a

73

73

70

n/a

69

71

n/a

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

75

74

72

n/a

71

74

n/a

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

76

75

73

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

70

n/a

75

75

73

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

63

Metropolitan

Women

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Small Rural

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Traffic Management Importance

86


2725

2326

2932

2525

2315

2330

24282827

4141

4242

4243

4142

4134

4043

403841

46

242627

2523

1925

2527

3727

2127

2624

20

666554

55

710

74

7665

111111

211

2211121

11111121121111

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15

2016 Traffic Management Importance

87


67

59

62

60

60

60

62

61

59

58

57

57

n/a

n/a

63

61

60

60

n/a

n/a

60

59

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

60

61

60

n/a

n/a

59

58

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

59

60

58

n/a

n/a

58

55

56

n/a

65

62

61

60

60

59

59

57

57

57

57

56

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

Women

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Interface

Men

35-49

50-64

Metropolitan

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Traffic Management Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

88


10

10

10

10

9

8

7

11

10

15

9

10

12

8

7

11

38

40

40

39

38

36

35

39

41

41

36

40

39

39

39

36

30

31

30

31

31

30

37

27

28

28

31

29

27

30

31

31

13

12

12

13

13

15

11

12

10

8

14

12

13

13

14

11

6

5

5

5

5

7

5

7

4

3

6

5

5

7

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

4

6

3

6

4

4

5

4

3

4

6

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

2016 Traffic Management Performance

89


74

74

74

72

70

71

70

65

67

67

67

67

74

n/a

74

n/a

70

71

69

n/a

n/a

68

67

n/a

75

n/a

74

n/a

71

73

70

n/a

n/a

68

67

n/a

74

n/a

74

n/a

71

72

70

n/a

n/a

68

68

n/a

74

73

73

72

70

70

69

68

68

68

66

65

Women

Regional Centres

65+

Metropolitan

Overall

50-64

35-49

Interface

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Small Rural

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Parking Importance

90


24242425

2427

2029

211919

2921

242527

414140

4242

4241

4339

3639

4240

3839

45

272728

2627

2430

2228

3431

233030

2720

7666

657

5989

58765

1111

111

22211122

111

11

11111111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17

2016 Parking Importance

91


62

59

59

58

57

60

58

56

55

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

60

58

57

n/a

58

57

55

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

57

57

n/a

58

56

55

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

55

56

n/a

57

56

55

55

n/a

n/a

61

58

57

57

56

56

56

56

55

55

54

54

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Overall

Interface

Men

Women

50-64

65+

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Parking Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

92


9

9

10

9

9

7

8

10

9

12

9

9

9

10

8

10

34

36

35

36

35

32

33

31

37

40

34

34

37

35

33

31

32

32

32

33

33

33

36

31

32

27

32

31

32

32

33

31

14

15

15

14

15

16

14

17

12

11

14

14

13

15

15

16

7

6

6

6

6

8

5

9

6

6

7

7

7

6

8

8

3

3

2

3

2

3

4

2

4

4

3

3

3

2

3

4

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24

2016 Parking Performance

93


74

71

72

71

72

71

72

70

70

70

68

67

74

n/a

n/a

71

73

70

n/a

70

68

n/a

n/a

66

75

n/a

n/a

71

73

71

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

68

74

n/a

n/a

70

71

70

n/a

71

68

n/a

n/a

66

74

73

71

71

71

70

70

70

70

69

69

66

Women

Interface

Metropolitan

50-64

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

18-34

35-49

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Law Enforcement Importance

94


262524

272426

33242425

2031

272626

25

3841

4040

4141

3439

3737

3739

35363843

2727

2826

2726

2429

2926

3124

283027

24

656665

66

799

47

666

211112

2

22212121

1111112211111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

2016 Law Enforcement Importance

95


70

67

66

67

66

66

65

65

64

64

65

63

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

66

65

64

n/a

63

69

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

65

64

64

n/a

62

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

64

n/a

63

67

65

64

64

64

63

63

63

62

62

61

61

18-34

Women

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

35-49

Men

65+

Interface

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Law Enforcement Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

96


12

13

14

13

13

12

11

13

12

12

11

12

15

12

9

11

37

40

41

40

40

37

32

38

37

39

37

38

41

40

36

33

26

26

25

25

26

25

28

26

27

25

27

25

24

24

28

27

8

6

7

7

7

8

9

8

7

7

9

7

6

8

9

8

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

3

3

4

4

4

14

12

11

12

11

15

16

11

13

13

12

15

11

13

14

17

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31

2016 Law Enforcement Performance

97


77

74

74

73

73

72

75

72

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

74

73

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

68

78

n/a

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

68

78

n/a

75

73

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

69

77

75

75

74

73

73

73

72

72

71

70

68

Women

Interface

18-34

35-49

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

65+

50-64

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Family Support Importance

98


2828

26272727

33282827

2134

3231

2623

4142

42444443

3941

3940

3942

4140

3843

2223242222

2121

222322

2717

2122

2521

55444

53

55

57

345

74

21111

111

2221

12

2

322223223433212

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25

2016 Family Support Importance

99


68

70

68

67

66

67

67

67

66

66

67

65

n/a

72

69

68

n/a

n/a

68

69

67

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

71

68

67

n/a

n/a

67

68

66

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

70

67

67

n/a

n/a

66

68

65

n/a

n/a

64

69

69

67

66

66

66

66

66

66

65

64

62

Metropolitan

65+

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

18-34

35-49

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Family Support Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

100


10

11

12

11

11

10

9

12

10

10

10

11

11

11

7

12

31

34

33

33

34

31

30

33

30

30

30

31

36

34

26

27

21

21

20

21

22

18

23

23

23

21

22

20

23

22

23

16

4

4

4

4

5

3

5

5

5

4

4

5

5

5

5

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

32

29

29

29

26

37

31

26

29

33

33

32

23

27

37

41

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35

2016 Family Support Performance

101


82

77

80

80

80

79

78

80

78

78

77

75

83

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

77

75

83

n/a

n/a

81

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

77

75

83

n/a

n/a

81

81

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

78

76

82

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

78

77

75

Women

Interface

Small Rural

50-64

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

35-49

18-34

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Elderly Support Importance

102


3636

353637

3437

343738

2843

3335

3836

44444645

4646

4345

4342

4543

444642

44

16161615

141614171615

2111

1916

1514

222

22

23

22

23

122

32

1

1

1

11

11

1

11

211112311222111

3




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26

2016 Elderly Support Importance

103


74

72

69

69

69

69

67

66

69

67

66

65

74

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

69

n/a

n/a

69

68

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

70

69

69

69

n/a

n/a

67

67

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

69

69

68

68

n/a

n/a

67

66

n/a

71

70

69

69

68

67

67

66

66

66

65

59

65+

Small Rural

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

Men

18-34

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

35-49

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Elderly Support Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

104


14

15

16

15

15

12

5

12

14

18

12

16

11

9

12

22

30

34

34

33

34

28

24

34

30

33

30

30

31

28

30

32

20

19

17

19

20

17

27

21

22

19

21

18

21

20

21

17

5

4

4

4

5

3

5

7

6

4

4

5

4

5

5

5

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

30

26

27

28

25

38

37

24

25

25

30

29

32

37

29

22

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37

2016 Elderly Support Performance

105


77

n/a

74

73

74

72

74

73

72

73

73

69

77

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

72

68

78

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

73

73

69

77

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

73

73

69

76

75

75

73

73

73

73

73

72

72

71

69

Women

Small Rural

18-34

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

65+

50-64

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Disadvantaged Support Importance

106


2728

25272727

2528

2728

2232

3028

2624

4242

44434343

4342

4043

4143

4241

3944

222323232322

2221

2421

2520

2222

2620

544445

46

53

734

65

5

111111

11

21

21

12

2

322222

423

532222

5




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

2016 Disadvantaged Support Importance

107


65

63

62

62

62

62

62

61

61

60

61

62

67

n/a

64

n/a

65

63

65

n/a

62

61

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

n/a

64

61

65

n/a

61

60

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

63

n/a

63

63

66

n/a

60

59

n/a

n/a

64

62

61

61

61

60

60

59

59

59

58

57

65+

Metropolitan

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

Interface

Small Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Disadvantaged Support Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

108


6

7

8

7

8

5

7

8

7

5

6

6

6

5

5

9

24

28

28

27

28

23

23

24

26

22

24

24

27

22

22

25

23

23

22

22

23

19

21

28

23

30

23

22

25

23

23

19

6

6

5

6

6

5

8

9

6

6

5

7

6

7

7

5

2

2

1

2

2

1

4

2

3

4

3

2

3

2

2

2

39

35

35

36

34

46

37

29

36

32

39

39

34

41

41

41

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17

2016 Disadvantaged Support Performance

109


73

75

72

72

72

72

72

72

73

70

71

71

74

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

70

70

71

74

75

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

70

70

71

74

75

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

70

70

71

75

75

73

73

73

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

Women

35-49

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

50-64

Large Rural

Small Rural

18-34

Men

65+

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Recreational Facilities Importance

110


25232323

2224

27262625

2228

2529

2621

4546

4747494844

474444

4546

4246

4648

2426

26262525

2522

2424

2622

2822

2323

43

43

3344

445343

44

11

11

1111

111111

12

1

1

111

1111

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29

2016 Recreational Facilities Importance

111


74

73

69

70

69

70

69

70

68

67

69

66

n/a

74

n/a

71

70

71

71

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

70

70

70

70

n/a

n/a

68

69

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

70

69

70

70

n/a

n/a

67

68

n/a

73

72

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

67

67

65

Metropolitan

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

Men

Women

18-34

Small Rural

Interface

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 43 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Recreational Facilities Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

112


21

22

23

22

21

26

17

23

17

21

21

21

21

20

19

24

43

43

44

44

44

45

45

42

41

41

42

43

45

42

41

42

23

23

21

22

22

19

24

23

25

23

23

22

23

24

25

20

7

6

6

7

7

4

7

6

8

8

7

7

7

8

8

5

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

4

3

3

3

2

4

4

2

4

3

3

3

3

4

5

3

4

5

4

5

2

3

4

7

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 43

2016 Recreational Facilities Performance

113


75

73

75

75

74

73

73

74

73

73

71

70

75

n/a

75

75

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

76

n/a

75

76

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

75

n/a

74

74

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

71

76

75

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

Women

Interface

35-49

50-64

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

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

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Public Areas Importance

114


26242526

2324

28262627

2230

2329

2825

484748

4849

504649

4745

4848

4646

4752

23252523

2523

2322

2323

2620

27222320

222222

23

23323

22

2

1

1

111

1

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

2016 Public Areas Importance

115


72

74

73

73

72

72

71

72

72

69

70

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

72

72

72

72

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

71

71

71

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

71

71

72

70

n/a

70

n/a

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

71

71

69

69

66

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Overall

Men

Women

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Public Areas Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

116


24

24

25

24

23

23

16

26

21

27

23

24

24

23

21

26

46

47

46

46

48

49

44

47

44

45

47

45

47

48

46

44

21

20

20

22

21

20

29

19

24

18

20

22

21

21

22

20

6

5

5

6

6

4

8

5

7

5

6

6

5

6

6

5

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 37

2016 Public Areas Performance

117


70

69

67

65

64

67

62

65

66

63

63

61

70

n/a

68

66

n/a

66

n/a

66

n/a

63

n/a

62

70

n/a

69

66

n/a

67

n/a

67

n/a

64

n/a

62

71

n/a

68

66

n/a

67

n/a

67

n/a

64

n/a

62

70

68

67

66

66

66

65

65

64

64

63

60

Women

Metropolitan

65+

Overall

Interface

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

18-34

Large Rural

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

118


1816171617

1919

151718

1422

16191918

4040404242

4337

3937

3735

4438

3938

43

303333

3333

2833

3231

3133

2833

3131

27

988

777

711

118

135

109

98

3211

21

32

444

1323

3

111

11111111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20

2016 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

119


75

76

75

75

73

73

69

73

71

73

72

72

n/a

78

n/a

77

75

76

n/a

74

73

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

74

73

73

n/a

73

72

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

74

73

72

n/a

73

71

n/a

71

n/a

75

75

74

74

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

68

Regional Centres

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

35-49

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

Large Rural

Men

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Art Centres & Libraries Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

120


23

24

27

25

24

24

15

29

21

19

20

27

21

22

21

28

42

44

44

44

44

44

39

41

39

46

42

43

43

43

42

41

18

18

17

18

19

17

27

17

20

17

20

17

20

18

21

15

5

4

3

4

5

4

5

4

6

6

5

4

6

5

5

3

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

10

9

8

8

7

9

12

6

11

11

11

8

9

10

10

11

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27

2016 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

121


66

65

63

59

62

62

63

62

61

61

61

58

65

n/a

62

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

61

61

58

65

n/a

62

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

62

63

59

65

n/a

63

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

61

62

58

66

64

64

63

62

62

62

62

61

61

61

58

Women

Small Rural

18-34

Interface

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Community Activities Importance

122


12111111111214

121315

101515

121211

37373737373834

3735

3732

4137

373438

384041

41393841

3838

3941

3640

394035

10109

91010

711

118

1368

1110

11

221222223

13111

33

1

1111111

11

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

2016 Community Activities Importance

123


71

71

70

69

69

71

69

69

68

68

68

65

n/a

71

71

70

n/a

72

69

n/a

68

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

69

69

n/a

71

68

n/a

68

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

68

68

n/a

71

68

n/a

67

67

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

69

69

69

68

67

67

67

65

63

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Overall

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

Large Rural

Men

50-64

Small Rural

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Community Activities Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

124


17

18

18

17

15

20

11

18

15

14

15

20

18

19

14

18

41

43

44

44

44

42

37

41

42

39

40

43

42

44

42

39

25

25

24

25

26

22

29

26

27

28

28

23

26

23

27

24

5

5

5

5

5

4

10

5

6

6

6

5

6

5

6

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

9

7

8

8

9

10

11

8

8

9

10

8

7

8

9

13

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29

2016 Community Activities Performance

125


81

80

79

81

79

80

79

80

78

77

76

77

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

79

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

77

n/a

81

n/a

81

79

80

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

77

n/a

80

n/a

79

78

79

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

77

82

82

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

Metropolitan

Women

Interface

50-64

Overall

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

18-34

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Waste Management Importance

126


38353536

324141

343736

3442

374041

35

4546

4747

4946

44484545

4644

444244

51

1416

1615

1611

1315

161616

1216

151311

21

11

121

1222

12

222

1

11111

1

1

1

1

1

1111

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31

2016 Waste Management Importance

127


77

75

73

72

72

72

73

71

71

69

70

68

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

72

74

n/a

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

71

72

70

73

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

72

72

72

73

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

76

74

71

70

70

70

70

69

69

68

67

66

Metropolitan

65+

Interface

Overall

Men

Women

18-34

Regional Centres

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Waste Management Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

128


24

25

26

24

24

30

24

22

21

22

24

24

23

22

22

29

45

47

47

47

48

48

47

45

42

43

44

45

47

45

42

44

18

17

16

18

17

14

19

21

19

20

18

18

19

18

20

16

7

6

5

6

6

5

7

7

9

7

7

7

7

7

8

5

4

3

3

3

2

1

2

3

7

4

4

4

3

5

5

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

3

3

2

2

2

3

2

3

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


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

2016 Waste Management Performance

129


73

70

69

70

68

67

65

69

67

64

65

59

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

67

66

68

67

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

67

65

68

67

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

66

66

64

67

66

n/a

63

n/a

73

71

70

69

68

67

67

67

67

65

64

60

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

Large Rural

35-49

Overall

18-34

50-64

65+

Interface

Men

Metropolitan

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

130


21212020

1811

1728

2427

1923

2024

2218

3838

3839

3935

3741

3937

3540

3636

3741

30313131

3136

3125

2727

3128

3330

2927

878

89

1411

565

1168

89

8

22122

22

12

231123

2

211112211222111

3




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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: 20

2016 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

131


64

62

63

63

63

63

61

59

59

60

59

64

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

60

60

59

64

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

61

60

59

64

n/a

n/a

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

60

60

59

63

62

62

62

62

61

60

59

59

59

59

18-34

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

Men

35-49

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Business/Development/Tourism Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

132


10

11

11

10

10

9

13

10

12

9

12

11

9

9

12

32

34

35

35

35

29

35

32

34

31

33

35

32

30

31

31

31

30

30

31

30

30

32

31

31

31

32

30

32

29

10

10

9

9

9

8

9

11

10

11

8

9

11

10

8

3

3

3

3

3

2

4

5

4

4

3

2

5

4

3

14

12

12

13

12

24

9

10

9

14

14

11

13

15

17

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26

2016 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

133


72

76

74

74

74

72

73

72

72

73

70

66

n/a

76

74

73

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

66

n/a

77

74

73

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

66

n/a

76

74

73

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

66

77

76

75

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

71

68

Small Rural

50-64

Women

35-49

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Town Planning Importance

134


272525252527

2623

2733

2429

183132

26

404141424238

3842

4042

4040

3637

4244

2425

252524

2523

2524

1826

2234

2418

19

44

4444

443

243

543

3

11

1111

2

11

21

111

1

545444

7543456

33

7




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

2016 Town Planning Importance

135


59

55

55

55

54

55

54

53

54

53

53

51

60

n/a

n/a

56

55

n/a

55

n/a

54

53

n/a

51

60

n/a

n/a

55

55

n/a

55

n/a

54

53

n/a

50

59

n/a

n/a

54

54

n/a

54

n/a

53

52

n/a

50

57

54

54

53

52

52

52

51

51

50

49

48

18-34

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Interface

65+

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Town Planning Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

136


5

5

6

5

5

5

6

5

5

4

5

5

6

4

4

6

25

28

28

29

29

26

24

26

24

23

25

24

29

23

22

24

30

31

31

32

32

29

31

32

31

30

30

30

29

31

32

30

14

12

12

12

14

13

14

14

15

14

15

13

10

15

18

14

7

6

6

5

6

6

7

5

8

9

8

6

5

8

9

7

19

17

17

17

15

21

18

18

17

20

16

22

21

19

16

19

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27

2016 Town Planning Performance

137


74

73

73

74

71

70

72

71

69

70

69

66

n/a

74

73

74

71

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

n/a

73

74

74

71

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

65

n/a

73

74

74

71

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

74

74

74

74

71

71

71

70

69

69

69

67

Metropolitan

Women

50-64

65+

Overall

Small Rural

35-49

Large Rural

Interface

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Planning & Building Permits Importance

138


2626252525

3024

222525

2329

2027

3128

3939414041

403539

3838

3839

3637

4042

2527252725

2228

3026

2326

2332

2721

19

65

55

55

75

67

74

764

4

21

11

11

112

2212

12

2

323233433

534322

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


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

2016 Planning & Building Permits Importance

139


57

58

54

54

53

54

53

53

53

53

51

49

n/a

58

54

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

53

51

50

n/a

n/a

59

55

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

54

54

50

n/a

n/a

60

54

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

53

51

49

n/a

55

55

52

50

50

50

50

50

49

48

48

46

Regional Centres

18-34

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Small Rural

65+

Men

35-49

50-64

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Planning & Building Permits Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

140


5

6

5

6

5

4

3

5

4

5

4

5

4

4

4

6

22

25

25

26

26

23

19

25

22

20

23

21

26

22

20

20

25

28

26

27

27

24

27

26

26

25

26

25

27

25

26

23

13

12

12

12

12

14

17

10

13

13

14

12

9

16

15

13

8

6

7

6

7

9

10

6

8

8

10

7

6

9

11

8

27

23

25

23

23

25

24

27

27

29

24

30

27

24

23

31

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25

2016 Planning & Building Permits Performance

141


71

77

75

74

77

73

72

73

73

73

70

69

n/a

77

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

73

72

n/a

70

68

n/a

76

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

71

n/a

70

68

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

71

71

n/a

69

67

77

77

77

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

71

69

Interface

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

50-64

35-49

Regional Centres

65+

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Environmental Sustainability Importance

142


302929

2726

3137

2630

3525

3535

3031

25

4041

4042

4141

3742

3935

394242

3839

42

2123

2424

242020

232221

2418

1823

2222

65

55653667

835

66

6

212222

2221

311

22

2

111111211111

1

2




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

2016 Environmental Sustainability Importance

143


65

65

64

63

64

63

65

64

64

63

62

63

n/a

65

64

n/a

64

64

65

n/a

64

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

66

64

n/a

64

64

65

n/a

64

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

67

64

n/a

65

63

65

n/a

64

n/a

62

n/a

64

64

63

63

63

63

63

62

62

61

61

60

Metropolitan

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

Women

35-49

65+

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Environmental Sustainability Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

144


11

10

11

11

11

11

8

12

11

9

10

11

11

10

10

11

36

39

39

40

39

38

32

35

34

34

36

35

38

37

33

34

30

30

29

29

29

28

31

32

32

31

30

30

30

29

31

29

8

7

6

7

7

7

10

7

9

8

8

8

7

8

9

7

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

3

2

3

3

3

2

13

13

12

12

12

14

18

12

11

14

12

14

11

13

13

16

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31

2016 Environmental Sustainability Performance

145


84

81

80

81

80

80

81

79

80

79

77

75

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

80

n/a

79

80

80

n/a

76

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

80

n/a

79

80

80

n/a

76

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

80

n/a

79

80

79

n/a

76

84

83

82

81

81

80

80

80

80

80

76

76

Women

Interface

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

65+

Metropolitan

Men

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Disaster Management Importance

146


45444546

4336

5044

4748

3851

454746

41

36353434

3839

3336

3535

3635

363233

40

1415141414

1711

151312

1710

141414

13

34444

5233

35

23

44

3

11111

1111

12

21

2

111112211211111

3




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17

2016 Disaster Management Importance

147


70

71

73

71

71

70

70

69

68

69

68

67

n/a

73

75

72

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

70

68

n/a

70

72

71

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

67

n/a

70

73

71

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

67

71

71

71

71

70

69

69

68

68

68

68

67

Small Rural

Women

18-34

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Interface

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Men

35-49

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Disaster Management Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

148


17

17

20

19

19

10

18

17

20

20

17

18

19

15

15

20

36

39

38

37

38

34

37

34

37

37

35

37

41

36

33

33

19

19

18

20

20

18

20

21

20

19

21

18

19

20

22

18

4

5

4

5

5

3

6

5

5

4

5

4

4

5

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

21

18

18

17

16

33

18

21

15

17

20

21

16

21

21

23

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23

2016 Disaster Management Performance

149


76

77

78

79

75

76

74

75

74

73

70

n/a

77

78

78

75

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

70

n/a

77

77

78

75

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

n/a

77

77

78

75

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

79

77

77

77

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

Interface

Women

35-49

50-64

Overall

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

65+

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Population Growth Importance

150


35

34

33

34

34

36

42

34

33

33

38

34

38

39

32

37

38

38

38

39

35

37

39

38

38

36

33

37

37

42

20

21

21

20

19

20

14

21

21

21

19

24

19

17

17

5

4

5

5

5

6

5

3

5

5

4

6

4

4

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

3

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14

2016 Population Growth Importance

151


61

57

60

54

54

54

54

55

51

50

50

n/a

n/a

59

54

55

54

n/a

55

52

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

54

55

54

n/a

54

51

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

52

52

52

n/a

52

48

49

n/a

59

55

55

52

52

51

51

51

49

48

47

Regional Centres

Interface

18-34

Men

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Population Growth Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

152


6

7

7

7

6

5

10

11

4

7

6

7

6

6

7

23

28

28

26

25

24

28

28

19

24

23

27

22

21

21

30

30

30

31

31

30

27

31

32

29

32

32

29

30

30

16

14

15

14

16

16

16

10

18

17

15

13

19

18

15

8

6

6

6

7

7

7

4

11

8

7

6

9

11

7

16

15

15

17

14

18

11

16

16

14

18

14

15

15

20

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16

2016 Population Growth Performance

153


75

76

74

75

75

73

74

70

70

65

62

n/a

78

n/a

78

76

75

76

n/a

71

68

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

77

76

74

77

n/a

72

66

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

74

71

71

73

n/a

68

65

n/a

76

76

75

75

74

73

73

71

71

69

64

Interface

50-64

Large Rural

Women

35-49

Overall

65+

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

154


28

28

32

30

24

11

36

23

31

24

32

25

31

33

26

42

40

40

42

42

43

39

46

41

42

42

38

41

42

46

23

26

23

24

28

34

21

22

21

26

20

26

23

21

22

5

5

4

4

5

9

4

8

5

6

4

11

4

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8

2016 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

155


69

58

62

55

55

55

52

54

53

52

51

52

n/a

n/a

63

55

53

55

n/a

55

n/a

53

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

56

56

56

n/a

57

n/a

55

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

61

59

61

n/a

60

n/a

59

58

n/a

68

62

61

57

57

56

56

55

54

54

52

51

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

18-34

Women

35-49

Overall

Interface

Men

Large Rural

65+

50-64

Small Rural

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

156


11

10

11

11

14

14

8

15

11

10

11

11

13

11

9

11

34

32

32

35

38

52

38

41

31

28

34

35

44

35

28

31

28

30

28

28

28

21

30

22

29

29

27

29

24

29

31

27

15

16

17

16

12

7

15

16

16

17

16

14

10

14

19

16

9

9

10

8

5

3

8

4

11

13

10

8

8

9

10

10

3

2

3

2

3

4

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

5

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


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

2016 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

157


82

80

80

78

78

78

76

76

79

76

72

n/a

81

80

78

n/a

77

n/a

77

80

76

n/a

n/a

83

82

81

n/a

80

n/a

80

82

79

n/a

n/a

82

81

80

n/a

79

n/a

79

80

78

n/a

81

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

78

77

70

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Overall

Interface

65+

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Men

Regional Centres

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: 14 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Unsealed Roads Importance

158


40

39

39

44

41

42

24

38

46

36

44

40

39

44

37

37

39

38

39

39

35

37

39

36

39

36

35

36

35

42

17

18

17

14

15

18

26

17

14

18

16

19

19

16

14

3

3

3

2

2

3

9

3

2

4

3

5

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

4

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

3

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


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: 14

2016 Unsealed Roads Importance

159


48

46

47

45

45

44

45

45

44

43

46

48

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

46

45

45

42

47

48

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

45

43

42

40

48

50

n/a

n/a

46

n/a

46

46

44

43

46

45

44

44

43

43

43

43

42

40

18-34

65+

Interface

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Women

35-49

50-64

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: 17 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Unsealed Roads Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

160


5

5

5

6

7

3

5

5

5

4

6

4

4

6

20

22

22

20

22

23

20

20

21

20

25

20

18

20

29

30

30

29

29

29

29

30

28

30

29

31

30

27

22

22

22

24

21

23

22

22

22

22

19

24

24

21

16

15

14

16

15

14

17

16

18

15

16

17

19

14

7

7

7

4

7

9

7

6

6

8

5

5

5

12

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

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: 17

2016 Unsealed Roads Performance

161


70

71

69

72

69

67

67

69

68

71

71

70

n/a

69

n/a

67

69

68

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

73

72

72

71

70

69

69

69

67

35-49

Women

18-34

Large Rural

Overall

Interface

Men

50-64

65+

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Business/Community Development Importance

162


22

20

20

20

22

20

24

22

24

22

19

43

42

45

42

44

44

43

46

45

42

41

27

31

27

30

26

28

27

28

28

27

28

4

5

5

5

4

5

4

3

2

7

6

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Large Rural

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 ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6

2016 Business/Community Development Importance

163


64

63

61

54

60

61

59

59

61

63

60

58

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

63

60

60

62

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

62

61

60

60

59

59

59

58

58

56

18-34

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Overall

Women

Men

35-49

65+

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Business/Community Development Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

164


7

8

8

7

6

11

7

9

8

7

10

6

6

7

33

34

35

36

31

35

32

38

32

34

40

37

28

28

29

31

30

26

30

31

30

22

28

30

26

29

33

28

10

9

8

7

9

11

12

9

11

9

10

10

10

9

3

3

2

2

3

4

4

3

4

3

2

3

5

3

17

15

17

22

21

9

16

19

16

18

12

14

18

25

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

2016 Business/Community Development Performance

165


67

66

65

67

67

65

63

59

50

n/a

67

64

65

66

65

63

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

65

64

64

64

63

62

62

57

Large Rural

Women

35-49

50-64

65+

Overall

Men

18-34

Interface

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2015 2014 2013 20122016 Tourism Development Importance

166


18

19

18

12

20

17

18

16

19

18

17

34

36

37

27

37

31

36

30

31

34

38

35

32

31

38

33

35

34

37

37

34

30

10

10

10

16

7

10

9

13

9

9

8

3

3

2

5

2

5

2

2

3

3

4

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Large Rural

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 ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6

2016 Tourism Development Importance

167


67

66

63

64

64

63

61

62

65

62

53

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

64

64

62

62

66

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

71

64

64

64

64

63

63

62

62

60

56

54

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Women

18-34

Overall

35-49

Men

65+

50-64

Interface

Metropolitan

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see slide 5 for explanation about significant differences

2016 Tourism Development Performance 2015 2014 2013 2012

168


13

12

13

4

5

25

13

18

12

13

12

13

11

14

34

35

36

21

26

42

38

36

34

35

39

35

34

31

27

28

28

34

31

22

27

22

26

28

25

28

29

26

9

9

9

12

11

5

8

11

10

9

9

9

10

9

3

3

2

3

4

3

3

5

4

3

3

3

4

4

13

13

13

26

22

3

11

8

14

13

12

12

11

17

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


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

2016 Tourism Development Performance

170


49%51%MenWomen

9%

17%

25%21%

28%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+

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.

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 69

Gender Age

171


S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12

26

23

18

16

9

3

2

3

Married or living with partner with children 16or under at home

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with childrenbut none 16 or under at home

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single with children but none 16 or underliving at home

Single living with children 16 or under

Do not wish to answer

2016 Household Structure

%

172


15

13

14

14

15

16

14

14

14

16

69

73

71

72

68

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say

2016 Years Lived in Area

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18

173


S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart presents this year’s data only.

2016 Years Lived in Area

15

17

15

17

12

15

15

16

29

15

7

7

16

15

27

15

15

12

15

17

21

24

10

8

25

27

30

25

24

19

26

23

25

34

23

17

17

18

13

17

17

16

17

17

19

11

23

14

27

23

15

26

32

38

27

28

6

16

38

54

2016 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say

174


79

82

83

83

81

68

88

92

77

81

59

87

91

92

20

17

16

16

18

31

11

7

23

18

41

13

8

7

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Own Rent

Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental property?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4

2016 Own or Rent

175


61

39

6

4

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

English only

Languages other than English

ITALIAN

CHINESE

GREEK

VIETNAMESE

HINDI

ARABIC

CROATIAN

FRENCH

GERMAN

SPANISH

58

5

3

2

2

1

Australia

INDIA

UNITED KINGDOM

CHINA

NEW ZEALAND

GREECE

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 2

2016 Languages Spoken

%

2016 Countries of Birth

%

177


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 the State 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 2012-2016 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

178


The sample size for the 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=28,108. 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=28,108 interviews is +/-0.6% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 49.4% - 50.6%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 3,034,000 people aged 18 years or over, according to ABS estimates.

179


In 2016, 69 of the 79 Victorian councils chose to participate in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings, as classified below. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings.

Please note that councils participating in 2012-2015 vary slightly to those participating in 2016, and that council grouping classifications changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results could not been made to any period prior to 2015.

Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small RuralBanyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast AlpineBayside Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw Ararat

Boroondara Melton Greater Shepparton Campaspe BenallaBrimbank Mornington Peninsula Latrobe Colac Otway BulokeFrankston Whittlesea Mildura Corangamite Central GoldfieldsGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Warrnambool East Gippsland Gannawarra

Greater Dandenong Wodonga Glenelg HepburnKingston Golden Plains Hindmarsh

Knox Horsham IndigoManningham Macedon Ranges LoddonMaroondah Mitchell MansfieldMelbourne Moira Murrindindi

Monash Moorabool PyreneesMoonee Valley Mount Alexander Queenscliffe

Moreland Moyne TowongPort Phillip South Gippsland West Wimmera

Stonnington Southern Grampians YarriambiackWhitehorse Surf Coast

Swan HillWangarattaWellington

Non-participating councils: Ballarat, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Nillumbik, Northern Grampians, Strathbogie, Wyndham, and Yarra.

180


Index ScoresMany 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 benchmark 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.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9Good 40% 75 30Average 37% 50 19Poor 9% 25 2Very poor 4% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60

181


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.

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36Stayed the same 40% 50 20Deteriorated 23% 0 0Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

182


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

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

Where:$1 = Index Score 1$2 = Index Score 2$3 = unweighted sample count 1$4 = unweighted sample count 1$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.

183


Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2016 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 2016 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.

184


ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2016 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.

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.

This overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey.

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

185


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2016 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 thiswill be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.State-wide 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.

survey methodology and sampling - local …...3 j00415 community satisfaction survey 2016...

Documents