2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report - Local … · coordinated approach allows for far more cost...

LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey

2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report

Coordinated by THE department of ENVIRONMENT, Land, water and planning on behalf of Victorian councils

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report

Background and objectives 4Survey methodology and sampling 5Further information 7Key findings and recommendations 8Summary of findings 20Positives and areas for improvement 34Detailed findings 35 Key core measure: Overall performance 36 Key core measure: Customer service 39 Key core measure: Council direction indicators 49 Communications 56Individual service areas 61 Community consultation and engagement 62 Lobbying on behalf of the community 66 Decisions made in the interest of the community 70 The condition of sealed local roads in your area 74 Informing the community 78 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area 82 Traffic management 86 Parking facilities 90

Contents


Enforcement of local laws 94 Family support services 98 Elderly support services 102 Disadvantaged support services 106 Recreational facilities 110 The appearance of public areas 114 Art centres and libraries 118 Community and cultural activities 122 Waste management 126 Business and community development and tourism 130 Council’s general town planning policy 134 Planning and building permits 138 Environmental sustainability 142 Emergency and disaster management 146 Planning for population growth in the area 150 Roadside slashing and weed control 154 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area 158 Business and community development 162 Tourism development 166Detailed demographics 170Appendix: Further project information 177

Contents [CONT’D]


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV) coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout Victorian local government areas. 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.

Background and objectives


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 profile 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=27,907 completed interviews were achieved in State-wide. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2017.

The 2017 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. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined into one category for simplicity of reporting.

Survey methodology and sampling

• 2016, n=28,108 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.• 2015, n=28,316 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.• 2013, n=29,501 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 24th March.• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.


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 significantly higher or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’ result for the council for that survey question for that year. Therefore in the example below:• The 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 2016. 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 2016.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

54

57

58

65

50-64

35-49

Overall

18-34

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may be found in Appendix B.


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

ContactsFor further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

Further information

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 – State-wide Report

64 6059 57 58 54

TOP 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

73

71

71

Arts centres & libraries

Appearance of public areas

Waste management

79

44

7954

7853

-35 -25 -25

Unsealed roads

PerformanceImportance

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Net differential

State-wide

Inter-face

Small Rural

State-wide

Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

Metro Regional Centres

Large Rural


The average overall performance index score of 59 for councils State-wide is in line with the 2016 result, however remains lower than the peak index score of 61 in 2014. Councils in the Metropolitan and Interface groups perform significantly higher (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the average for councils State-wide on the measure of overall performance (index scores of 64 and 60 respectively). Conversely, average ratings for councils in the Small Rural, Regional Centres and Large Rural groups are significantly lower than the State-wide average (index scores of 58, 57 and 54 respectively).

The youngest (aged 18 to 34 years) and oldest (aged 65+ years) resident cohorts have significantly more favourable impressions of council performance overall than average (index scores of 62 and 60 respectively). Those aged between these two groups rate overall performance significantly less favourable (index score of 57 among those aged 35 to 49 years and 55 among those aged 50 to 64 years).

There has been no significant change in performance index scores in the last year among demographic sub-groups. The exception is those aged 65+ years who rate overall performance a significant one index point higher than in 2016. Overall performance ratings among this cohort had been declining gradually from a high of 62 in 2014, however the 2017 result lifts the index score up from a low of 59 seen in 2016.

On average, Victorians are three times as likely to have a favourable impression (45% ‘very good’ or ‘good’) of councils’ overall performance than to have an unfavourable impression (15% ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’). A further 37% sit mid-scale providing councils an ‘average’ rating.

Overall performance


Overview of core performance measures

Review of overall State-wide ratings for core performance measures (as shown on page 22) shows that performance ratings are stable or have increased by one or two index points compared to State-wide results in 2016. Average ratings for councils State-wide only declined on one measure, sealed local roads, in the past year. Ratings for making community decisions (index score of 54) and customer service (index

score of 69) remain unchanged from 2016 (as well as overall performance, discussed previously). State-wide average ratings for consultation and engagement (index score of 55, one point

higher than 2016), lobbying (index score of 54, one point higher than 2016), and overall council direction (index score of 53, two points higher than 2016) increased in the past year.

On the measure of overall council direction, the index score of 53 is equal to the peak rating seen on this measure across 2013 to 2015. This is the only core performance measure that has equaled previous peak ratings in 2017.

State-wide performance on sealed local roads (index score of 53) declined one index point in the past year. Ratings for the condition of sealed local roads is significantly lower than the State-wide average

for councils in the Small Rural and Large Rural groups (index scores of 50 and 43 respectively). Ratings are significantly higher for councils in the Metropolitan and Interface groups (index scores of 66 and 59 respectively).

In the past year, ratings declines on the measure of sealed local roads were significant among residents aged 18 to 34 and 65+ years, as well as men.


Overview of core performance measures [CONT’D]

Average ratings on core measures for councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than averages for councils State-wide, while ratings for councils in the Large Rural group are significantly lower. This pattern is consistent across all core measures.

In summary, results for community consultation and engagement, advocacy and overall council direction all show significant improvement over the 2016 result. Conversely, there has been a decline in the result for sealed local roads. Council overall performance, customer service and decisions made in the interest of the community are on par with the 2016 results.


CUSTOMER contact and service

Almost three in five (59%) residents State-wide have had recent contact with their council. The main method of contacting councils is by telephone and in person (32% and 28%

respectively). This pattern has not changed over time, with telephone used more often than in person contact. These methods of contact remain well ahead of email (14%) which is used more frequently than contacting council in writing (11%).

Council residents aged 35 to 49 years have the most contact with their local councils (66%) while residents aged 18 to 34 years have the least contact (52%).

The customer service index of 69 is a positive result for councils State-wide. Customer service is one of the highest performing areas. Almost one third (30%) of residents rate councils’ customer service as ‘very good’, with a further

36% rating customer service as ‘good’, consistent with 2016. Men and residents aged 35 to 49 years are significantly less favourable in their impressions of

councils’ customer service (index scores of 66 and 68 respectively). Customer service ratings among both of these demographic sub-groups has been trending down from their respective peak ratings in 2014 (index scores of 70 and 71).

Women and residents aged 65+ years are significantly more favourable of councils’ customer service (index scores of 72 and 71).


CUSTOMER contact and service [CONT’D]

Among those whose most recent contact with their council was via email, customer service index scores have declined significantly in the last 12 months (index score of 65, down four points from 2016). This is an area to pay attention to among councils who wish to migrate a greater number

of service interactions to electronic communications. The opposite has occurred among those who most recently contacted their council by telephone

(index score of 73, up two points from 2016, a significant increase).

Newsletters, sent via mail (34%) or email (25%), are the preferred methods for councils to inform residents about news, information and upcoming events. The gap between these two methods of communication is reducing over time. Preference for receiving information via email is steadily increasing (from 18% in 2012). While preference for receiving information sent via mail remains strong, it has declined

considerably in the last year from a steady 39% across 2013 to 2016. Residents aged 50 years or younger prefer to receive a council newsletter via mail (32%) to

email (28%) by a small margin. Older residents (aged 50+ years) exhibit a greater preference for receiving a newsletter in the mail (37%) to email (21%).


Areas where council is performing well

Art centres and libraries is the area where councils perform most strongly (index score of 73). Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point from 2016. Two-thirds of residents (66%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. It is however considered one of the least important service areas (importance index score of 64).

Another area where councils Overall are well regarded is the appearance of public areas. With a performance index score of 71, this service area is rated second highest. Seven in ten residents (71%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Parks and gardens (10%) and public areas (4%) are among the frequently mentioned best things

about living in Victoria’s councils. While not the most important council service, the appearance of public areas is still considered an

important council responsibility by residents State-wide (importance index score of 74).

Waste management (performance index score of 71) is another area where Councils are rated more highly compared to other service areas. Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point in the last year. Seven in ten residents (69%) rate councils’ performance in the area of waste management as

‘very good’ or ‘good’. This service area also has the second highest importance score (importance index of 79).

On each of these service areas, ratings for councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than averages for councils State-wide, while in the Large Rural group they are significantly lower.


Areas in need of attention

The most significant decline in 2017 is a three point drop on the measure of slashing and weed control (index score of 53). Councils’ performance in this area is at the lowest level recorded (noting that only a subset of councils measure this service). Performance on this measure declined significantly across almost all demographic groups.

Residents aged 50 to 64 years are the exception, although ratings in this area are significantly lower than average.

Other services areas worthy of attention involve roads and parking. Impressions of the condition of sealed local roads (discussed previously), as well as parking facilities, are the two other service areas that exhibited significant declines (one index point) in performance index scores in the past year. Counter to the geographic trends, councils in the Metropolitan and Regional Centres group accrue

significantly lower average ratings in parking facilities than councils overall, while councils in the Small Rural, Large Rural and Interface group garner significantly higher ratings in this area.

Furthermore, with a performance index score of 44, the maintenance of unsealed roads is the lowest rated service area. Two in five residents (39%) rate Council performance in this service area as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. Councils in the Large Rural group rate on average significantly lower on this measure than councils

State-wide, while councils in the Regional Centres group rate significantly higher.

Roads are a priority area for residents, with sealed local roads (importance index score of 78) and unsealed roads (importance index score of 79) rating among the most important service areas.


If forced to choose, more residents prefer to see service cuts (50%) to maintain council rates at current levels over rate rises (31%) to improve local services. Over time, preference has been shifting toward ‘service cuts’. In 2012, 44% of residents

claimed to prefer service cuts to maintain council rates at current levels. The proportion of residents preferring service cuts has been trending up over time to 50% in 2017. This contrasts with the 40% of residents who in 2012 had a preference for rate rises to improve local services (compared to 31% currently).

Residents are almost three times as likely to ‘definitely prefer service cuts’ (27%) as they are to ‘definitely prefer rate rises’ (10%). The proportion of residents who ‘definitely prefer rate rises’ has changed little over time (from 11% in 2012). This contrasts with the proportion of residents who ‘definitely prefer service cuts’, which has steadily increased from 22% in 2012 to 27% currently.

On balance, more residents agree that the direction of councils’ overall performance has improved over the last 12 months (19%) compared to the proportion who believe it has deteriorated (13%). Further, residents State-wide are also more likely to agree that councils are heading in the ‘right’

direction (65%) than the ‘wrong’ direction (22%) (asked of a subset of councils).

Further insights


For the coming 12 months, councils State-wide should pay particular attention to the service areas where stated importance exceeds rated performance by more than 10 points. Key priorities include the following, where the margin between importance and performance is greater than 20 points: Unsealed roads (margin of 35 points) Making community decisions (margin of 25 points) Sealed local roads (margin of 25 points) Population growth (margin of 24 points) Planning and building permits (margin of 21 points) Slashing and weed control (margin of 21 points).

Consideration should also be given to Large Rural councils and residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

On the positive side, councils State-wide should maintain the relatively strong performance in the areas of art centres and libraries, appearance of public areas and waste management, alongside other areas where performance index scores are relatively high. It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from, what is working amongst other groups,

especially residents aged 65+ years and Metropolitan councils, and use these lessons to build performance experience and perceptions in other areas.

Focus areas for coming 12 months


Snapshot of key findings

• Overall direction• Art centres & libraries• Waste management• Emergency & disaster

management• Recreational facilities• Family support

services

• Enforcement of local laws

• Environmental sustainability

• Business / community development / tourism

• Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying• Town planning policy• Population growth• Planning & building

permits• Unsealed roads

Higher results in 2017(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• Sealed local roads• Parking facilities• Slashing and weed control

Lower results in 2017(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• Aged 65+ years• Metropolitan group

Most favourably disposed towards Council

• Aged 50-64 years• Large Rural group

Least favourably disposed towards Council

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS


2017 summary of core measuresindex score results

71 71 7270 69 69

60 60 61 60 59 5957 57 57 56

54 555755 54 5455 55 54 53

55 55 56 5553 54

52 53 53 5351

53

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


2017 Summary of core measuresdetailed analysis

Performance Measures Overall 2017

Overall2016

Highest score

Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 59 59 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and engagement) 55 54 Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural Shires

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community) 54 53 Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural Shires

MAKING COMMUNITY DECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community) 54 54

Metropolitan, Aged 18-34

years

Large Rural Shires, Aged 50-64 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads) 53 54 Metropolitan Large Rural

Shires

CUSTOMER SERVICE 69 69Regional Centres, Women

Men, Large Rural Shires

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 53 51 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years


2017 Summary of Key Community SatisfactionPercentage Results

9

7

5

6

11

30

36

29

24

29

32

36

37

32

31

34

28

18

10

15

13

14

16

8

5

6

5

7

12

6

2

10

22

10

1

2

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

19 62 13 6Overall Council Direction

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


2017 Importance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME

808080797878777676747573737373727371737070706967666362

808079787679777575737473737372717271737170696967656562

807979787779777575737475727372707271727070697067666562

80n/a7981n/a79787575747374737273727271737171n/a706766n/a62

80n/a7880n/a80777575737371737172737271737071n/a706666n/a62

8079797978787776

747474747372727272727171707069

6764

6261

Emergency & disaster mngtCommunity decisions

Waste managementUnsealed roads

Sealed local roadsElderly support services

Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth

Informing the communityAppearance of public areasConsultation & engagement

Slashing & weed controlFamily support services

Environmental sustainabilityTown planning policy

Traffic managementRecreational facilities

Planning & building permitsDisadvantaged support serv.

Enforcement of local lawsParking facilities

Business & community dev.Lobbying

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

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


3639

3545

3539

3436

3026292830

2724

2926262727

252123

211516

12

4642

4434

4439

4238

434741

4140

4146

4041413838

394339

3839

3435

1615171418

1719

1923

2424

2225

2426

242424

26252828

2730

343439

122

42

32

44

24

54

64

55465

65

789

1211

111

1111

12

111

22

12

111

22232

2111111

1211

12

41

31121111

Waste managementCommunity decisions

Elderly support servicesEmergency & disaster mngt

Sealed local roadsUnsealed roads

Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth

Informing the communityAppearance of public areasConsultation & engagement

Family support servicesSlashing & weed control

Traffic managementRecreational facilities

Environmental sustainabilityDisadvantaged support serv.

Town planning policyEnforcement of local laws

Planning & building permitsParking facilities

Business & community dev.Lobbying

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

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

Individual service areas importance detailed percentages

Individual Service Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32


2017 Performance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME

727170696969686663636360616059595756545453545652515043

737272707069696766646361626061605857565555555554545445

757273717170706866646462646262605857575756555555545345

73717170706969676564n/a6262n/a6160585757n/a55n/a5655545544

73717270706869676564n/a6263n/a6058575657n/a55n/a6154525446

737171

7070

6968

676464

636161

605959

575555

5454

535353

5251

44

Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas

Waste managementEmergency & disaster mngt

Recreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural

Elderly support servicesFamily support services

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Tourism developmentBus/community dev./tourismDisadvantaged support serv.Business & community dev.

Informing the communityTraffic management

Local streets & footpathsParking facilities

Consultation & engagementCommunity decisions

LobbyingSealed local roads

Slashing & weed controlTown planning policy

Population growthPlanning & building permits

Unsealed roads

2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual service areas performance detailed percentages

Individual Service Areas Performance

2525

2322

1717

12101011131314

1111101110

776765555

4644

4343

4237

39383735343331

3432

333031

3329

29242526

2423

21

2018

1822

25192630

2932

2928

1929

2832

2027

323234

2922

3031

2728

66

47

54

813

713

915

41016

164

189

1514

166

1413

1423

23

12

12

35

25

39

23

128

111

367

72

75

916

13

104

1021

133

143

122

3014

12

343

161010

1639

192223

7

Appearance of public areasWaste management

Art centres & librariesRecreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural

Emergency & disaster mngtEnforcement of local laws

Traffic managementEnvironmental sustainability

Informing the communityTourism development

Local streets & footpathsElderly support services

Bus/community dev./tourismSealed local roads

Parking facilitiesFamily support servicesSlashing & weed control

Business & community dev.Consultation & engagement

Community decisionsPopulation growth

Disadvantaged support serv.Town planning policy

LobbyingPlanning & building permits

Unsealed roads%

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


2017 Importance summary by council group

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

Overall

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Community decisions

3. Waste management

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Local streets & footpaths

Interface


2. Population growth

3. Local streets & footpaths

Regional Centres


2. Sealed roads 3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural



3. Waste management

Bottom Three Least 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




Regional Centres



3. Planning permits

Large Rural



3. Traffic management

Small Rural





2017 PERFORMANCE summary by council group

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

Bottom Three Lowest Performing 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


2. 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. Parking facilities

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning

permits 3. Population

growth

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities 2. Community

decisions3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Planning

permits


Importance and Performance2017 Index Scores Grid

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

Service Importance Performance

Consultation & engagement 74 55Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 54

Making community decisions 79 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 53

Informing the community 74 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57

Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 55Enforcement of local laws 71 64Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 71 61

Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 64 73Community & cultural activities 61 69

Waste management 79 71Business & community development & tourism 67 61

Town planning policy 72 53Planning permits 72 51Environmental sustainability 72 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70

Planning for pop. growth 76 52Slashing & weed control 74 53Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 44

Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 62 63

0

50

100

0 50 100

HIGH

IMPORTANCE

LOW

POOR PERFORMANCE GOOD


Importance and Performance2017 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 74 55Lobbying on behalf of thecommunity 69 54

Making community decisions 79 54Condition of sealed local roads 78 53

Informing the community 74 59Condition of local streets & footpaths 77 57

Traffic management 72 59Parking facilities 70 55Enforcement of local laws 71 64Family support services 73 67Elderly support services 78 68Disadvantaged support services 71 61

Recreational facilities 72 70Appearance of public areas 74 71Art centres & libraries 64 73Community & cultural activities 61 69

Waste management 79 71Business & community development & tourism 67 61

Town planning policy 72 53Planning permits 72 51Environmental sustainability 72 64Emergency & disastermanagement 80 70

Planning for pop. growth 76 52Slashing & weed control 74 53Maintenance of unsealed roads 79 44

Business & community dev. 70 60Tourism development 62 63

40

90

40 90


79

79

78

76

72

74

77

72

74

74

69

70

72

70

71

78

80

Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Sealed local roads

Population growth

Planning & building permits

Slashing & weed control

Local streets & footpaths

Town planning policy

Consultation & engagement

Informing the community

Lobbying

Parking facilities

Traffic management

Business & community dev.

Disadvantaged support serv.

Elderly support services

Emergency & disaster mngt

Individual Service Areas index score Summaryimportance Vs performance

44

54

53

52

51

53

57

53

55

59

54

55

59

60

61

68

70

Importance Performance Net Differential

-35-25-25-24-21-21-20-19-19-15-15-15-13-10-10-10-10

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


15

9

9

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

8

6

Sealed Road Maintenance


Communication

Development - inappropriate

Financial Management

Parking Availability

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Rates - too expensive

Traffic Management

Waste Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Nothing

Don’t Know

10

8

7

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

9

17

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Customer Service

Road/Street Maintenance

Waste Management

Community Facilities

Public areas

Generally Good - Overall/NoComplaints

Community/PublicEvents/Activities

Councillors

Nothing

Don't Know

2017 best things about Council detailed percentages2017 services to improve detailed percentages

2017 Best Aspects- Top Mentions Only -

2017 Areas for Improvement- Top Mentions Only -

%%

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Q17. What does Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41


Positives and Areas for Improvement Summary

BES

T TH

ING

SAR

EAS FOR

IMPR

OVEM

ENT

- Sealed Road Maintenance: 15%(up 2 points from 2016)

- Community Consultation: 9%(equal points on 2016)

- Communication: 9%(equal points on 2016)

- Parks and Gardens: 10%(equal points on 2016)

- Recreational/Sporting Facilities: 8%(equal points on 2016)

- Customer Service: 7%(up 1 point from 2016)

DETAILED FINDINGS

KEY CORE MEASUREOVERALL PERFORMANCE


Overall performanceindex scores

64

62

60

60

60

59

58

58

57

57

55

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

66

62

61

60

59

59

57

58

55

57

55

54

67

64

62

61

61

60

59

59

58

59

57

56

n/a

65

n/a

62

62

61

n/a

60

n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

60

n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

59

n/a

58

57

n/a

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


Overall performancedetailed percentages

2017 Overall Performance

99101110912

108

6109910

77

11

3636

3940

4040

4436

3431

353637

4337

3234

3736

3535

3536

3339

3941

3637

3835

3739

38

1011

109

109

69

1114

1111

107

1113

10

55

44442

4576644

665

22111122322221223

2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan

InterfaceRegional Centres

Large RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68

KEY CORE MEASURE CUSTOMER SERVICE


Contact last 12 months summary

Overall contact with Council

Most contact with Council

Least contact with Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service

• Large Rural Shires• Men

• Regional Centres• Women

• Index score of 69, equal points on 2016

• Aged 18-34 years


• 59%, equal with 2016


66

63

63

60

60

59

59

58

57

56

56

52

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

Women

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

Large Rural

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

2017 contact with council

2017 Contact with Council

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such asFacebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


2017 contact with council

2017 Contact with Council

61 60 61 6159 59

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Have had contact

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such asFacebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


2017 Method of contact with council

2017 Method of Contact

36 3739

3532 32

34

29 3032

29 28

13 14 1513

13

14

1816 16

1412

1112 11 129 8 8

1 2 2 3 3 4

1 1 1 2 1 22012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

By telephone

In person

By email

In writing

Via website

By social media

By text message

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19Note: Respondents could name multiple contact methods.


2017 MOST recent method of CONTACT WITH COUNCIL

2017 Most Recent Contact

%

3842

4440

38 39

34

29 28

33 34 32

9 9 10 10 11 1212 12 11 10 9 96 6 5 5 5 51 1 2 2 3 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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: 19


2017 contact customer serviceindex scores

72

72

71

71

69

69

69

69

68

68

66

66

Regional Centres

Women

Metropolitan

65+

Interface

Overall

18-34

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Men

Large Rural

70

72

73

71

70

69

68

69

69

69

67

67

71

72

73

72

72

70

69

70

70

70

68

67

n/a

73

n/a

74

n/a

72

71

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

74

n/a

71

70

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

74

n/a

71

70

n/a

70

70

69

n/a

2017 Customer Service Rating 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


30303132

313133

3133

2530

2633

282829

34

363637

38383736

3438

3736

3736

383736

35

181717

16171717

1816

2018

1817

171918

16

888

778

88

79

89

8788

9

666

555

575

87

85

6775

2221212222121

3111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

2017 contact customer servicedetailed percentages

2017 Customer Service Rating

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: 68


84*

76

75

73

69

65

61

By text message

In person

Via website

By telephone

By social media

By email

In writing

2017 contact customer service INDEX scores by method of last contact

79

74

76

71

74

69

62

79

77

75

73

66

68

66

82

77

74

75

73

70

69

61

74

73

72

75

68

68

68

75

75

73

79

73

69

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 19Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences*Caution: small sample size < n=30


45

39

28

35

22

26

18

51

37

50

36

41

34

34

14

13

16

24

21

25

4

6

4

7

5

8

11

3

2

5

3

9

7

1

2

2

4

2

3

By text message*

In person

Via website

By telephone

By social media

By email

In writing

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

2017 CONTACT Customer servicedetailed percentages by method of last contact

2017 Customer Service Rating

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: 19 *Caution: small sample size < n=30

KEY CORE MEASURE COUNCIL DIRECTION INDICATORS


Council Direction Summary

• 31% prefer rate rise, equal points on 2016• 49% prefer service cuts, down 1 point on 2016

• 65% right direction (18% definitely and 47% probably)• 22% wrong direction (12% probably and 10% definitely)

• 46% a lot of room for improvement• 42% little room for improvement• 7% not much room for improvement



• 62% stayed about the same, equal points on 2016 • 19% improved, up 1 point on 2016• 13% deteriorated, down 2 points on 2016

Rates vs Services Trade-Off from Q10

Direction Headed from Q8

Improvement from Q7

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


2017 Overall COUNCIL direction last 12 monthsINDEX SCORES

56

55

54

54

54

53

53

52

52

52

51

50

18-34

Regional Centres

65+

Women

Metropolitan

Interface

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

56

51

51

52

55

54

51

50

51

48

49

48

58

53

53

55

56

54

53

53

52

51

51

51

57

n/a

54

55

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

52

n/a

51

50

57

n/a

55

54

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

52

n/a

51

50

56

n/a

53

52

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

51

n/a

49

48

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

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: 68Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 overall council direction last 12 monthsdetailed percentages

1918202019181717

2419191919

221717

20

6262

636363

646565

5761616162

6363

6060

131513131315

1112

1415151512

1015

1712

655554

766555

76567




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

2017 Overall Direction

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: 68


2017 room for improvement in servicesdetailed percentages

46

40

47

41

46

47

34

58

46

46

44

47

49

46

42

48

44

50

46

45

52

33

44

41

45

44

41

39

7

7

7

5

5

5

9

5

7

7

9

5

6

8

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

4

3

2

4

2

2

3

6

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

2017 Room for Improvement

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4


2017 right/wrong directiondetailed percentages

18

20

20

21

19

18

19

12

17

22

18

17

17

17

16

21

47

48

49

52

50

49

50

48

45

45

45

49

51

43

46

48

12

9

10

9

10

11

10

15

13

9

10

13

12

14

12

9

10

9

10

8

10

12

8

14

12

10

12

9

10

12

11

8

13

14

11

10

10

10

14

10

14

13

14

12

10

14

16

14

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

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

2017 Future Direction

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: 8


2017 rates/service trade offdetailed percentages

10101011111110889

1312

813

999

2121

232525

2922

1817

2120

2021

25191919

2322

2224

2222

2228

2422

2221

2425

2222

21

2728

2623

2422

2726

2926

2728

2523

2928

29

201918171816

1921

2321

1819

2115

2021

23




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+

%Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

2017 Rate Rise v Service Cut

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: 19

COMMUNICATIONS


Note: Website and text message formats again did not rate as highly as other modes of communication, although further analysis is recommended to understand the demographic preference profiles of the various different forms of communication.

Communications Summary

• Newsletter sent via mail (34%) Overall preferred forms of communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (37%)Preferred forms of

communication among over 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (32%)Preferred forms of

communication among under 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (down 5 points on 2016) Greatest change since 2016


2017 best forms of communication

2017 Best Form42

39 39 39 39

34

18 1921 22

24 25

18 18 17 1614 15

15 15 14 1513 12

2 3 3 3 4 5

2 2 2 2 2 32 2 2 3 3 4

1 1 1 1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A council newsletter sent via mail

A council newsletter sent via email

Advertising in a local newspaper

A council newsletter as an insert ina local paperA text message

The council website

Other

Can't say

Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30


2017 best forms of communication: under 50S

2017 Under 50s Best Form39

37 36 3537

32

21 21

24 2527 28

18 19

16 15

12 1314 14 14 13

10 10

35 5 5 5

8

3 2 2 3 3 42 3 3 3 4 5

1 0 0 0 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





The council website

Other

Can't say



2017 best forms of communication: over 50S

2017 Over 50s Best Form46

42 43 42 41

37

1517 18 18

21 21

18 18 18 17 1618

16 1715

18

15 15

1 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 2 2 22 2 2 2 3 31 1 1 1 1 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017





The council website

Other

Can't say


INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AREAS


2017 community consultation and engagementimportance index scores

78

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

72

72

72

67

50-64

Regional Centres

Women

65+

35-49

Small Rural

Large Rural

Overall

Interface

Metropolitan

Men

18-34

78

75

77

76

76

77

76

75

75

73

73

72

78

74

76

75

76

76

75

74

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

76

74

76

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

71

68

77

n/a

75

74

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

67

77

n/a

75

73

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

68

2017 Consultation and Engagement Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 community consultation and engagementimportance detailed percentages

2932

2928

27272626

333130

2632

2031

3629

4141

42414343

4143

394142

4042

3542

4246

242224

252525

2525

242423

2722

3622

1720

43344454

233

53

633

3

11111111

111

111

1

12111111111111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%

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

2017 Consultation and Engagement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22


2017 community consultation and engagement performance index scores

58

57

56

55

55

55

54

53

53

53

52

52

18-34

Metropolitan

Women

Small Rural

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Interface

Men

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

57

58

56

55

55

54

52

55

53

54

52

51

59

58

57

56

56

56

53

57

54

54

54

53

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

n/a

n/a

56

56

n/a

54

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

n/a

n/a

56

56

n/a

54

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

n/a

n/a

56

55

n/a

54

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 community consultation and engagementperformance detailed percentages

787888768

69

787779

292931

323233

3128

2928

3029

3034

2926

28

3232

32323433

3133

3333

3032

3232

3233

31

1515

14131313

1316

1516

1515

1412

161714

67

6555

55

78785

47

86

10109998

1312

8999

1110

89

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityimportance index scores

72

72

70

70

70

69

69

68

67

67

66

66

Women

Regional Centres

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

65+

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

Men

73

69

71

71

71

69

70

68

68

70

69

66

72

68

71

70

72

69

70

68

67

68

68

66

73

n/a

72

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

67

67

73

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

68

66

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

68

67

2017 Lobbying Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityimportance detailed percentages

232423232323

2121

262224

1926

182527

21

393839404041

3837

4040

4038

4036

4038

41

272728

272727

2928

2526

2729

2536

2423

25

7666

66

87

57

48

576

76

2221212

32

2231123

3

2322222323323222

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22


2017 lobbying on behalf of the community performance index scores

57

56

55

55

55

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

18-34

Metropolitan

Small Rural

65+

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

Overall

Men

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

57

56

54

54

54

55

52

53

53

51

50

50

58

58

56

57

56

56

55

55

55

53

53

53

59

n/a

n/a

57

57

n/a

n/a

56

55

54

n/a

53

59

n/a

n/a

57

56

n/a

n/a

55

55

53

n/a

52

60

n/a

n/a

57

56

n/a

n/a

55

55

53

n/a

52

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 lobbying on behalf of the communityperformance detailed percentages

556666556

46555556

2423

26272627

2423

2722

262424

3023

2123

3131

32323333

3032

3233

293131

3232

3229

1313

12111212

1111

14151213

1310

1415

12

55

4444

34

56

56

44

66

5

222220191817

2723

15202120

231920

2226




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Lobbying Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance index scores

82

81

81

81

80

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

Regional Centres

Women

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

65+

Small Rural

18-34

Men

82

82

80

80

80

80

79

79

79

n/a

79

77

80

81

82

80

80

80

80

78

79

82

78

77

n/a

81

81

80

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Community Decisions Made Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance detailed percentages

39

39

38

37

38

39

44

40

34

36

42

36

42

42

35

42

42

42

43

42

41

39

41

46

42

42

42

40

40

44

15

14

15

16

15

15

14

15

17

17

13

17

15

12

15

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

3

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Community Decisions Made Importance

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


2017 decisions made in the interest of the community performance index scores

58

58

55

55

55

55

54

53

52

52

51

51

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

65+

Women

Small Rural

Overall

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

59

58

56

54

55

53

54

53

52

51

50

50

59

59

58

55

56

56

55

54

53

52

52

52

n/a

60

n/a

58

57

n/a

57

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

2017 Community Decisions Made Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 decisions made in the interest of the communityperformance detailed percentages

6

7

7

7

7

6

7

5

7

6

6

7

6

5

8

29

29

31

33

32

29

28

26

31

29

29

35

28

25

28

34

33

33

34

32

34

34

36

33

33

34

32

33

36

34

14

14

14

12

11

13

17

16

14

14

13

11

15

16

13

7

8

6

5

4

5

8

8

7

8

6

5

8

8

6

10

10

9

10

14

13

7

9

9

10

11

10

10

10

12

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

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: 68


2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance index scores

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

77

77

75

Small Rural

Regional Centres

50-64

Women

Interface

65+

35-49

Overall

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Men

18-34

n/a

76

79

79

79

79

78

78

80

76

76

76

78

77

78

78

77

78

77

76

78

75

75

73

n/a

n/a

79

79

n/a

78

79

77

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

n/a

n/a

2017 Sealed Local Roads Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance detailed percentages

35

34

32

33

32

38

41

36

41

32

38

32

38

39

33

44

46

44

45

47

42

41

40

43

45

43

42

41

45

50

18

16

20

18

18

18

16

21

14

20

16

23

18

14

15

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

2

1

2

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Sealed Local Roads Importance

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


2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your area performance index scores

66

59

56

54

54

53

53

53

52

51

50

43

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

65+

Women

Overall

Men

Regional Centres

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Large Rural

67

60

58

56

54

54

54

54

52

51

52

44

69

60

57

57

55

55

55

55

53

52

52

45

n/a

n/a

59

56

55

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

n/a

2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaperformance detailed percentages

11

11

11

12

19

13

12

6

8

12

11

14

11

9

11

32

33

33

33

43

38

30

22

28

31

32

34

30

30

32

28

28

29

27

24

27

28

29

30

27

28

24

28

28

30

16

16

16

17

9

13

17

22

19

16

16

15

17

18

15

12

11

10

10

4

8

13

19

14

13

12

12

13

13

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Sealed Local Roads Performance

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: 68


2017 informing the communityimportance index scores

77

77

76

76

76

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

Women

Regional Centres

50-64

Small Rural

65+

Interface

Overall

Large Rural

35-49

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

79

76

77

78

76

77

76

77

75

74

75

72

78

76

77

76

75

74

75

76

75

73

73

72

78

n/a

76

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

73

71

78

n/a

77

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

73

71

78

n/a

78

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

74

72

2017 Informing Community Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 informing the communityimportance detailed percentages

3033

30303031

2731

353032

2535

2730

3430

4342

44434444

4343

4141

4442

4439

4143

47

2320222222

2124

2121

2420

2718

2724

1919

44

333

454

233

52

543

3

11111

111

1111111

1

1

1

111

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Informing Community Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24


2017 informing the community performance index scores

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

58

58

58

57

55

Metropolitan

65+

Women

18-34

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Men

50-64

Interface

63

59

60

61

56

59

59

58

59

58

56

55

64

61

62

62

59

61

61

60

58

60

58

56

n/a

65

63

63

n/a

62

62

n/a

n/a

62

60

n/a

n/a

63

62

63

n/a

61

60

n/a

n/a

61

59

n/a

n/a

62

61

63

n/a

60

58

n/a

n/a

59

57

n/a

2017 Informing Community Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 informing the communityperformance detailed percentages

11121213121212

812

10121112

101110

14

3535

3840

3838

3729

333835

3536

3834

3335

3231

3130

3231

3237

3232

3032

3232

3433

30

1313

121111

1312

1715

1214

141313

1315

12

55

4434

45547544565

342332

44343343334




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Informing Community Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36


2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance index scores

80

79

78

78

78

78

77

77

76

75

75

74

Interface

Women

Metropolitan

50-64

35-49

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Large Rural

Men

18-34

79

80

78

78

78

77

77

77

75

77

74

76

78

79

77

78

78

78

77

77

76

77

75

75

n/a

79

n/a

78

78

77

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

81

n/a

79

78

78

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

79

n/a

79

77

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance detailed percentages

3434343335

3236

4034

3132

2939

313737

33

42434344

4446

4341

4242

4343

4139

4141

47

191819181818

1816

2022

1922

1625

191716

222322

222

32

32

42

22

111111

11

11

1

111

121111

1123111

22




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Streets and Footpaths Importance

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: 25


2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance index scores

62

60

57

57

57

57

57

56

56

56

54

53

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

Regional Centres

Overall

65+

Small Rural

35-49

Women

Interface

50-64

Large Rural

63

60

58

58

57

57

58

57

56

57

55

53

64

62

59

58

58

57

59

58

57

56

55

54

n/a

62

59

n/a

58

57

n/a

57

56

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

63

59

n/a

58

57

n/a

57

56

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

62

58

n/a

57

57

n/a

56

56

n/a

54

n/a

2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance detailed percentages

13121313141315

1213

10131312

1513

1013

3334343433

3440

3333

2932

3532

3733

3232

2828282828

2827

2830

2828

2829

2528

3029

1514151515

1512

1515

1714

1415

1316

1614

987789

5108

119

89

89

98

233211112

44231234




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Streets and Footpaths Performance

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: 32


2017 traffic managementimportance index scores

76

75

74

72

72

72

71

71

69

67

67

62

Metropolitan

Women

65+

50-64

Overall

35-49

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Interface

Small Rural

75

75

73

72

72

72

72

70

69

70

71

63

74

73

73

72

71

71

72

68

68

68

68

57

n/a

73

73

71

70

69

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

74

72

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

75

74

73

73

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Traffic Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 traffic managementimportance detailed percentages

2727

2523

2629

332425

1916

2331

262828

27

4141

4142

4242

4333

4241

3441

4240

404145

2424

2627

2523

1929

2629

3526

2125

242522

6666554

115

813

84

865

4

1111111211311111

1

1111111111

11

2




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Traffic Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14


2017 traffic management performance index scores

67

62

61

61

60

60

59

59

58

58

57

56

Small Rural

Large Rural

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

Women

Interface

Overall

Men

35-49

50-64

Metropolitan

65

62

59

61

60

60

57

59

57

57

57

56

67

59

62

62

60

60

61

60

59

58

57

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

60

61

n/a

60

60

59

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

61

60

n/a

60

59

58

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

60

59

n/a

58

58

55

56

n/a

2017 Traffic Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 traffic managementperformance detailed percentages

10101010109991110

1410101110811

38384040

3938

3539

4141

453739

4236

3737

3030

3130

3131

3033

3131

2730

3029

3131

30

1313

12121313

1711

108

61412

12141512

56

555566

54265

566

5

343333332

66

34

133

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Traffic Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18


2017 parking facilitiesimportance index scores

73

73

73

72

71

70

69

67

66

66

64

64

65+

Women

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

50-64

Overall

35-49

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Interface

Small Rural

73

74

72

73

70

70

69

68

66

68

68

65

74

74

72

74

71

70

70

67

67

67

65

67

74

74

n/a

n/a

71

70

69

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

75

n/a

n/a

73

71

70

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

n/a

72

71

70

68

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Parking Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 parking facilitiesimportance detailed percentages

2524242425

2428

1629

191820

2922242628

39414140

4242

4337

3836

3438

4135

3939

45

28272728

2627

2435

2734

3532

2434

2927

21

67666

64

105

898

486

54

11111

1121

232111

22

1111

11

1

11

11




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Parking Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18


2017 parking facilities performance index scores

63

60

57

56

56

56

55

55

54

54

53

52

Small Rural

Large Rural

Interface

18-34

35-49

Men

Overall

Women

65+

50-64

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

61

58

56

57

57

56

56

56

55

55

54

54

62

59

60

59

58

58

57

56

55

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

58

57

57

56

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

57

58

57

56

56

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

55

57

56

56

55

55

n/a

n/a

2017 Parking Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 parking facilitiesperformance detailed percentages

1099109989109

141091010810

33343635

3635

2936

2740

4133

3235

3331

30

323232323333

3432

3231

2732

323133

3430

161415151415

1813

1911

1015

161514

1618

8766

66

87

1155

88888

8

2332322323222222

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Parking Performance

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


2017 enforcement of local lawsimportance index scores

74

73

73

72

71

71

71

70

70

68

68

67

Women

65+

Interface

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

50-64

Overall

18-34

35-49

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural

74

71

73

71

70

71

70

70

70

69

66

69

74

72

71

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

67

68

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

68

n/a

66

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

71

72

70

n/a

68

n/a

74

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

70

71

68

n/a

66

n/a

2017 Law Enforcement Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 enforcement of local lawsimportance detailed percentages

27262524

2724

2931

28232223

3127272726

383841

4040

414036

37373837

393635

3943

2627

272826

2724

2428

302929

242728

2623

66

56665

66

768

47754

221111121

24212221

11111111121111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Law Enforcement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23


2017 enforcement of local laws performance index scores

67

66

65

65

64

64

64

63

63

63

61

60

18-34

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

35-49

Metropolitan

Overall

Large Rural

Men

65+

50-64

Interface

67

64

64

65

63

64

63

63

62

62

61

61

70

67

66

67

65

66

66

65

64

64

63

65

69

n/a

n/a

67

66

n/a

66

n/a

65

64

63

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

66

65

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

62

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

67

64

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

63

n/a

2017 Law Enforcement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 enforcement of local lawsperformance detailed percentages

12121314131313

1013

1013

111315

121011

3937

4041

4040

3834

4240

4038

3944

403535

2626

2625

2526

2629

2625

252625

2226

2827

88

67

77

89

68

78

77

798

34

33

33

35

2334

32

34

3

131412111211

1313

10131211

149

1214

16




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Law Enforcement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32


2017 family support servicesimportance index scores

77

76

76

74

73

73

73

72

72

71

71

69

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

Metropolitan

Overall

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Men

77

73

75

75

73

73

74

72

70

71

72

68

77

75

74

74

72

73

73

72

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

72

73

n/a

71

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

73

n/a

69

2017 Family Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 family support servicesimportance detailed percentages

282828

2627272931

3427

2422

3533

3027

23

414142

42444441

4040

4242

4042

4240

3844

2222

232422222321

2023

2327

1821

2225

22

55

54445

53

567

33

65

5

22

11111212

22

112

22

2322221122332112

5




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Family Support Importance

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


2017 family support services performance index scores

70

68

68

67

67

67

67

66

66

65

65

64

65+

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

Overall

Men

35-49

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

69

69

66

67

66

66

66

66

66

65

64

62

70

68

67

68

66

67

67

67

66

66

67

65

72

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

69

68

68

67

n/a

n/a

66

71

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

68

67

67

66

n/a

n/a

64

70

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

68

67

66

65

n/a

n/a

64

2017 Family Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 family support servicesperformance detailed percentages

111011121111109

14912

91213

117

12

3031

3433

3334

2830

3331

3130

3035

3226

27

2021

21202122

1919

222219

2120

2222

2116

44

444

535

55

44

55

542

12

111

21

22

22

11

22

11

3432

292929

2638

3624

3133

3532

2429

4141




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Family Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32


2017 elderly support servicesimportance index scores

82

80

80

79

79

78

78

78

77

77

76

74

Women

Regional Centres

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

82

78

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

77

75

82

80

80

80

80

77

78

79

78

78

77

75

83

n/a

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

78

n/a

77

75

83

n/a

81

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

79

n/a

77

75

83

n/a

81

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

80

n/a

78

76

2017 Elderly Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 elderly support servicesimportance detailed percentages

353636

353637

3334

393637

2742

3134

4036

4444444645

4645

4543

4344

4643

4444

4346

1716

161615

1418

1916

1716

2113

2218

1414

22

22

22

311

223

12

22

2

11

1

1

111

111

1

1211111111111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Elderly Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24


2017 elderly support services performance index scores

72

71

68

68

68

68

67

67

67

66

66

64

65+

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Men

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

50-64

Interface

71

70

69

68

67

66

69

66

67

65

66

59

74

72

69

69

69

66

69

69

67

66

67

65

74

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

69

n/a

74

n/a

70

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

67

67

n/a

73

n/a

69

69

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

66

67

n/a

2017 Elderly Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 elderly support servicesperformance detailed percentages

141415161515

1110

1514

191315

101012

22

3130

3434

3334

2726

3631

353229

3327

2932

1920

1917

1920

1920

2520

1718

1920

1821

17

45

444

536

55

5454

45

4

22

221

21

22

22

22

12

22

3030

262728

2539

3618

2722

3030

3138

3022




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Elderly Support Performance

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


2017 disadvantaged support servicesimportance index scores

75

75

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

70

67

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

50-64

Large Rural

35-49

Small Rural

Men

76

73

75

73

72

73

73

71

72

73

75

69

77

74

74

72

73

73

74

73

72

73

n/a

69

77

n/a

74

n/a

72

72

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

77

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 disadvantaged support servicesimportance detailed percentages

262728

25272726

3034

2524

2032

272628

24

414242

444343

4139

4041

4040

4241

3939

45

2422

23232323

2520

2024

2328

2026

252320

55

44445

63

677

44

76

5

2111111

332

23

112

22

2322221112

421112

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12


2017 disadvantaged support services performance index scores

64

63

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

59

56

65+

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Men

18-34

Overall

Large Rural

Women

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Interface

64

59

62

61

60

61

61

60

57

59

59

58

65

61

63

62

62

62

62

62

62

61

60

61

67

n/a

n/a

65

65

64

n/a

63

n/a

62

61

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

64

65

62

n/a

61

n/a

61

60

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

63

66

63

n/a

63

n/a

60

59

n/a

2017 Disadvantaged Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 disadvantaged support servicesperformance detailed percentages

667878

62

1068

66665

8

2524

2828

2728

2323

3025

262525

3022

2125

2223

2322

2223

2027

2621

2823

2124

2222

19

66

65

66

68

76

65

77

56

5

22

21

22

13

32

422

22

22

3939

35353634

4337

2640

293939

3142

4441




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Disadvantaged Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16


2017 recreational facilitiesimportance index scores

74

74

73

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

35-49

Women

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

50-64

Large Rural

Overall

Interface

65+

Small Rural

18-34

Men

75

75

73

73

73

72

73

73

71

72

72

71

75

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

71

73

70

71

74

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

75

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

75

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 recreational facilitiesimportance detailed percentages

2425

232323

222423242423

2225

2228

2420

4645

46474749

47464646

4344

4743

4547

49

262426

262625

262726

2528

2824

3024

2525

44

34

33

333

4453523

4

111

11

1

11

1111

11

1

1

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Recreational Facilities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27


2017 recreational facilities performance index scores

73

73

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

66

66

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Regional Centres

50-64

18-34

35-49

Large Rural

Interface

72

73

69

69

68

69

70

67

69

67

65

67

73

74

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

67

66

68

74

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

71

69

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

70

70

n/a

70

n/a

69

70

68

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

70

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

70

67

n/a

n/a

2017 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 recreational facilitiesperformance detailed percentages

22212223

2221

2516

2319

232123

212020

26

4343

4344

4444

4542

4241

4244

424243

4344

2223

2321

2222

2026

2023

212221

2422

2318

77

66775

99

96

7789

75

23

22221

32

3422

33

31

443333443

544422

57




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40


2017 the appearance of public areasimportance index scores

76

75

75

75

75

75

74

74

74

73

72

72

Women

50-64

35-49

Interface

Metropolitan

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

18-34

76

75

75

75

74

75

74

74

74

74

72

72

75

75

75

73

73

74

73

73

74

73

71

70

75

75

75

n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

70

76

76

75

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

75

74

74

n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

71

2017 Public Areas Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the appearance of public areasimportance detailed percentages

2626

242526

232727262526

2329

252828

24

4748

4748

4849

4848

454647

4747

424747

52

2423252523

252322

2627

2326

2129

232221

2222222322

33

2322

2

1

1

111

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28


2017 the appearance of public areas performance index scores

74

73

72

72

72

72

72

71

71

69

69

66

Small Rural

Regional Centres

65+

Women

35-49

Metropolitan

18-34

Overall

Men

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

73

73

72

71

71

72

72

71

71

69

69

66

74

72

72

72

72

73

73

72

71

70

69

67

n/a

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

73

72

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

71

70

n/a

72

71

71

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

70

n/a

73

71

71

70

n/a

n/a

2017 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 the appearance of public areasperformance detailed percentages

25242425

242324

1728

2030

2327

2525

2226

46464746

464848

4346

4544

4744

4647

4644

2021

2020

222120

3018

2317

21202019

2221

6655666

76

756666

75

22222223

223222232

11111111

11111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Public Areas Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39


2017 art centres and librariesimportance index scores

69

67

66

66

64

64

63

62

62

61

61

60

Women

Metropolitan

65+

35-49

Overall

50-64

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Interface

18-34

Small Rural

Men

70

68

67

66

66

65

63

64

66

64

65

60

70

69

67

67

65

65

63

66

64

63

62

61

70

n/a

68

66

66

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

62

70

n/a

69

67

66

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

71

n/a

68

67

66

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

62

2017 Art Centres & Libraries Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 art centres and librariesimportance detailed percentages

1518

1617161718

141415

1212

1912

181616

3940

40404242

413636

3936

3443

3539

3844

34303333

333332

3636

3238

3732

4032

3429

99

88

777

10111011

135

11897

23211

21

3233312

222

1111

11111111

111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

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


2017 art centres and libraries performance index scores

76

75

75

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

70

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Regional Centres

35-49

Overall

Interface

18-34

Small Rural

50-64

Men

Large Rural

75

74

74

75

72

72

68

71

71

71

70

70

76

75

75

75

73

73

72

73

69

71

72

73

78

n/a

77

n/a

76

75

n/a

74

n/a

73

74

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

73

n/a

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

72

73

n/a

73

n/a

71

71

n/a

2017 Art Centres & Libraries Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 art centres and librariesperformance detailed percentages

232324

27252425

2127

1822

2026

2024

2027

4342

4444

4444

4442

4243

4343

4445

4343

43

1818

1817

181917

1919

2018

1917

1917

2115

45

43

45

35

36

55

455

43

12

1122

11

12

11

111

11

10109887

1011

81210

129

109

1211




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28


2017 community and cultural activitiesimportance index scores

65

63

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

57

57

Women

35-49

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Metropolitan

18-34

Overall

65+

Large Rural

50-64

Men

Interface

66

62

62

64

62

64

62

61

61

61

58

63

66

62

63

65

62

63

62

61

61

61

58

59

65

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

62

61

n/a

61

58

n/a

65

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

62

63

n/a

62

59

n/a

65

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

62

n/a

61

58

n/a

2017 Community Activities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 community and cultural activitiesimportance detailed percentages

12121111111113

813

1112

10141313

1110

3537

3737373735

3036

3635

3039

3237

3437

39384041

4139

3945

3838

4142

3742

374038

1110109

91011

1210

119

147

1110

1110

222122232323112

33

11

11111111111

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Community Activities Importance

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


2017 community and cultural activities performance index scores

71

70

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

67

64

Women

35-49

65+

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

Regional Centres

50-64

Men

18-34

Interface

70

70

69

71

65

69

67

69

67

67

68

63

71

70

71

71

68

69

69

69

68

68

69

65

71

71

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

69

68

69

n/a

70

69

71

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

68

68

68

n/a

70

68

71

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

67

67

68

n/a

2017 Community Activities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 community and cultural activitiesperformance detailed percentages

1717181817

1518

11181718

1419

1519

1618

4241

4344

4444

4338

4342

4241

4342

4441

41

2525

252425

2623

2926

2526

2823

2724

2723

55

555

55

76

64

6575

54

12

111

11

21

12

1111

11

1097889

1113

697

10988

1012




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Community Activities Performance

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


2017 waste managementimportance index scores

81

81

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

78

77

76

Metropolitan

Women

50-64

35-49

Interface

Regional Centres

65+

Overall

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Small Rural

82

82

81

80

81

79

80

80

79

79

78

79

81

80

81

80

79

80

79

79

78

76

77

77

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

81

81

80

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

76

77

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

n/a

79

78

n/a

76

77

n/a

2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 waste managementimportance detailed percentages

3638

353536

3240

3739

3430

3240

353938

33

4645

4647

4749

464540

4648

4645

424346

52

1614

1616

1516

1316

1718

1918

1420

171413

12

111

11221

22121

11

1

1

1

1

1

11

11




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Waste Management Importance

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


2017 waste management performance index scores

75

74

71

71

71

71

71

70

70

69

69

68

Metropolitan

65+

Men

Overall

Women

18-34

Interface

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Regional Centres

Large Rural

76

74

70

70

70

70

71

69

68

67

69

66

77

75

72

72

72

73

73

71

69

70

71

68

n/a

75

73

73

72

74

n/a

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

71

70

73

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

72

72

72

73

n/a

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

2017 Waste Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 waste managementperformance detailed percentages

25242526

2424

292525

212526

25252423

30

4445

4747

4748

4846

4144

4244

4545

4444

44

1818

1716

1817

1618

1921

1818

1818

1920

15

67

6566

58

977

67778

5

343332

13

444

333432

322222112

44333223




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Waste Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38


2017 business and community development and tourism importance index scores

74

72

69

69

68

67

67

67

66

65

65

60

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

35-49

65+

Overall

50-64

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Interface

Metropolitan

73

71

70

68

67

67

67

69

67

64

65

60

73

70

69

68

67

67

69

70

65

65

64

59

n/a

n/a

70

68

67

67

68

n/a

66

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

67

67

68

n/a

65

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

66

66

66

67

n/a

64

63

n/a

n/a

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 business and community development and tourism importance detailed percentages

2121212020

1812

1729

1826

1923

1924

2120

383838

3839

3933

3841

4141

3640

3737

3940

3030

313131

3136

3224

3125

3128

3329

2828

88

78

89

158

485

107

108

98

2221222312

221112

2

1211111111211111

3




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

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


2017 business and community development and tourism performance index scores

66

64

64

63

63

61

61

60

60

60

60

58

Interface

65+

Small Rural

Women

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

35-49

Men

Large Rural

50-64

n/a

62

61

62

63

60

62

62

59

59

59

59

63

63

63

63

64

61

63

62

60

59

59

59

n/a

63

n/a

63

64

62

n/a

n/a

60

60

n/a

59

n/a

63

n/a

63

64

62

n/a

n/a

60

61

n/a

59

n/a

63

n/a

63

64

62

n/a

n/a

60

60

n/a

59

2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 business and community development and tourism performance detailed percentages

111011111010

615

1311

15101212

108

12

3432

3435

3535

3136

3533

3633

3437

3330

34

2931

3130

3031

3126

2831

2730

2928

2932

28

1010

109

99

9812

129

119

1011

127

33

33

33

22

44

442

24

43

141412121312

2213

89

101314

1013

1516




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24


2017 council’s general town planning policyimportance index scores

76

76

76

74

74

73

73

72

71

71

70

64

50-64

65+

Small Rural

35-49

Women

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

Interface

18-34

76

74

77

74

75

73

72

73

72

71

72

68

76

74

72

74

74

73

72

72

73

70

72

66

76

74

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

70

n/a

66

77

75

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

71

n/a

66

76

74

n/a

73

74

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

70

n/a

66

2017 Town Planning Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 council’s general town planning policyimportance detailed percentages

2627

2525252526

2322

2730

2328

1528

3230

4140

4141424241

3742

4144

4041

3543

4243

242425

25252423

2627

2320

2622

3621

1818

444

4445

54

53

54

843

2

111

1111

21

1

11111

1

4545444

6532

45433

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Town Planning Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16


2017 council’s general town planning policy performance index scores

57

56

54

54

53

53

53

53

51

51

51

49

18-34

Regional Centres

Large Rural

65+

Men

Overall

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Small Rural

Interface

50-64

57

54

51

52

51

52

54

53

50

49

52

48

59

55

53

54

54

54

55

55

53

53

55

51

60

n/a

n/a

55

54

55

n/a

56

53

n/a

n/a

51

60

n/a

n/a

55

54

55

n/a

55

53

n/a

n/a

50

59

n/a

n/a

54

53

54

n/a

54

52

n/a

n/a

50

2017 Town Planning Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 council’s general town planning policyperformance detailed percentages

55565554654555546

2625

28282929

2522

2929

2528

2431

2522

25

3030

31313232

2831

3331

2929

3029

2931

30

1414

12121214

1415

1112

1514

139

1518

13

77

665

66

75

68

76

588

6

191917171715

2021

161819

1622201918

20




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Town Planning Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24


2017 planning and building permitsimportance index scores

76

75

74

74

72

72

72

70

69

69

68

66

Metropolitan

65+

50-64

Women

35-49

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Interface

Regional Centres

Small Rural

18-34

74

74

74

74

71

71

70

69

69

69

71

67

74

74

73

73

72

71

71

69

69

70

70

66

n/a

74

73

74

72

71

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

74

74

73

72

71

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

74

74

73

72

71

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

2017 Planning & Building Permits Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 planning and building permitsimportance detailed percentages

272626252525

3424

2225

2224

3019

2932

29

383939414041

3838

3640

3738

3834

3837

42

2525

27252725

2127

3026

2826

2534

2523

19

56

555

54

675

67

48

54

3

12

111

11211

321111

2

3323232233

534322

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Planning & Building Permits Importance

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


2017 planning and building permits performance index scores

60

55

51

51

51

51

50

49

49

48

47

46

Regional Centres

18-34

Small Rural

Women

65+

Overall

Men

35-49

Metropolitan

Large Rural

50-64

Interface

55

55

50

52

50

50

49

48

50

50

48

46

57

58

53

54

53

54

53

53

53

54

51

49

n/a

58

n/a

54

53

53

53

51

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

55

54

55

54

54

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

54

53

54

53

51

n/a

n/a

49

n/a

2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 planning and building permitsperformance detailed percentages

5565655

28

46656556

2322

2525

2626

2220

3121

2123

2228

212121

2725

2826

2727

2631

2726

2828

2529

272724

1413

1212

1212

1516

815

1314

1310

1516

14

98

67

67

1010

511

810

88

1012

8

2327

23252323222122

2424

1926

2123

2027




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Planning & Building Permits Performance

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


2017 environmental sustainabilityimportance index scores

76

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

70

70

68

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

35-49

Overall

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

Small Rural

65+

Men

77

77

74

72

73

77

73

73

71

74

71

69

77

75

74

73

73

71

72

73

73

77

70

69

77

75

n/a

72

73

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

70

68

76

74

n/a

71

72

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

70

68

75

73

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

69

67

2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 environmental sustainabilityimportance detailed percentages

29302929

2726

3031

2731

2624

3433

2929

24

404041

4042

414140

4036

3638

4238

4039

41

242123

2424

2422

202524

2927

2024

2422

24

56

5556

56

555

833

566

2212221

32223111

32

1111111111111

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Environmental Sustainability Importance

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


2017 environmental sustainability performance index scores

65

64

64

64

64

64

64

63

63

62

62

62

Regional Centres

18-34

Metropolitan

65+

35-49

Men

Overall

Women

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

63

64

64

63

63

62

63

63

61

60

62

61

63

65

65

65

63

64

64

64

63

63

64

62

n/a

65

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

66

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

67

n/a

65

63

64

64

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 environmental sustainabilityperformance detailed percentages

10111011111110912

81211101110911

373639

394039

3738

3937

3538

3740

3834

36

2930

30292929

2830

2930

3029

2927

2930

30

78

7677

68

78

877

77

86

232222

23

23

322

22

32

141313121212

161211

1412

141412

151515




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Environmental Sustainability Performance

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


2017 emergency and disaster managementimportance index scores

84

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

80

78

77

76

Women

Interface

Large Rural

18-34

Small Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

Overall

65+

35-49

Metropolitan

Men

84

83

81

81

82

80

80

80

80

80

76

76

84

81

81

80

80

80

81

80

79

79

77

75

85

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

80

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

76

85

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

80

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

76

84

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

76

2017 Disaster Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 emergency and disaster managementimportance detailed percentages

4545444546

4340

524547

4539

5148

4447

41

3436

353434

3835

3233

3536

3534

3232

3340

1414

15141414

1711

151314

1811

1516

1413

434444

64432

623

54

3

111111

121112111

11

1111112111111

13




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Disaster Management Importance

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


2017 emergency and disaster management performance index scores

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

Small Rural

65+

18-34

Women

Regional Centres

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Interface

35-49

Metropolitan

50-64

71

71

71

71

68

69

70

68

69

68

68

67

70

71

73

71

68

70

71

69

70

68

69

67

n/a

72

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

71

72

70

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

69

n/a

67

n/a

71

73

70

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

67

2017 Disaster Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 emergency and disaster managementperformance detailed percentages

171717

201919

1115

1918

2316

1918

1615

20

373639

383738

3141

3939

3837

3742

3734

35

1919

1918

2020

1918

2020

182018

1821

2216

44

5455

35

454

44

34

44

22

2222

12

222

22

22

22

2121

18181716

3418161616

2021

1720

2323




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2017 Disaster Management Performance

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


2017 planning for population growth in the areaimportance index scores

80

79

78

78

78

77

76

75

75

75

73

Interface

50-64

35-49

Women

Large Rural

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

79

77

77

77

74

75

76

75

76

74

74

76

79

78

77

74

75

75

74

76

73

70

n/a

78

78

77

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

78

77

77

n/a

74

75

n/a

n/a

73

71

n/a

78

77

77

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

73

73

2017 Population Growth Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 planning for population growth in the areaimportance detailed percentages

36

35

34

33

34

34

36

44

32

38

34

39

32

40

39

35

38

37

38

38

38

39

37

36

40

37

38

38

34

38

40

40

19

20

21

21

20

19

19

13

21

19

20

18

26

17

15

16

4

5

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

3

6

3

6

3

3

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Population Growth Importance

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: 15


2017 planning for population growth in the area performance index scores

62

57

53

52

52

52

51

50

50

49

48

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Overall

65+

Women

Metropolitan

Interface

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

59

55

52

51

52

51

51

55

49

48

47

61

60

54

54

54

55

54

57

51

50

50

n/a

59

54

54

55

55

n/a

n/a

52

51

n/a

n/a

59

54

54

55

54

n/a

n/a

51

50

n/a

n/a

58

52

52

52

52

n/a

n/a

48

49

n/a

2017 Population Growth Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 planning for population growth in the areaperformance detailed percentages

7

6

7

7

7

6

6

7

14

5

8

7

10

6

6

7

24

23

28

28

26

25

22

22

33

21

24

24

30

23

20

22

29

30

30

30

31

31

30

30

26

30

29

29

27

30

31

29

16

16

14

15

14

16

17

18

10

19

17

15

14

19

17

15

7

8

6

6

6

7

7

10

4

9

7

8

6

9

9

7

16

16

15

15

17

14

18

12

12

17

15

17

14

13

17

21

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Population Growth Performance

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: 20


2017 roadside slashing and weed controlimportance index scores

78

76

76

76

76

75

74

73

71

66

65

50-64

Small Rural

65+

Interface

Women

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

76

n/a

73

76

75

75

73

74

71

69

64

76

77

74

75

75

74

73

75

70

65

62

78

n/a

76

n/a

78

n/a

75

76

71

68

n/a

78

n/a

77

n/a

77

n/a

74

76

72

66

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

74

n/a

71

71

68

65

n/a

2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 roadside slashing and weed controlimportance detailed percentages

30

28

28

32

30

24

15

34

33

32

27

33

20

31

38

31

40

42

40

40

42

42

38

40

39

44

38

41

37

37

40

45

25

23

26

23

24

28

36

22

23

21

28

21

33

28

18

21

4

5

5

4

4

5

8

3

4

2

5

4

9

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6


2017 roadside slashing and weed control performance index scores

68

58

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

50

50

Metropolitan

18-34

35-49

Interface

Women

Overall

Men

65+

Small Rural

Large Rural

50-64

68

61

57

56

57

56

55

54

51

54

52

69

62

55

52

55

55

54

52

52

53

51

n/a

63

53

n/a

55

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

63

56

n/a

56

56

57

55

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

67

59

n/a

61

61

60

59

n/a

n/a

58

2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 roadside slashing and weed controlperformance detailed percentages

10

11

10

11

11

14

17

10

8

11

10

10

15

10

8

8

31

34

32

32

35

38

47

31

30

27

31

32

38

32

28

29

27

28

30

28

28

28

22

29

28

27

26

28

22

30

28

28

18

15

16

17

16

12

7

19

19

19

20

16

13

18

21

19

11

9

9

10

8

5

2

9

13

14

11

11

11

9

13

12

3

3

2

3

2

3

4

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

5

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8


2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance index scores

81

81

80

79

79

79

78

77

77

76

76

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Interface

65+

Overall

35-49

Men

Large Rural

18-34

Regional Centres

81

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

78

78

70

82

80

80

78

78

78

79

76

76

76

72

n/a

80

81

n/a

77

78

80

76

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

82

83

n/a

80

81

82

79

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

81

82

n/a

79

80

80

78

n/a

79

n/a

2017 Unsealed Roads Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance detailed percentages

39

40

39

39

44

41

41

33

35

43

35

43

37

40

44

35

39

37

39

38

39

39

36

41

39

41

41

38

36

37

38

45

17

17

18

17

14

15

18

18

21

13

19

15

23

18

14

14

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

4

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Unsealed Roads Importance

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: 13


2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance index scores

52

45

45

45

44

44

44

43

43

42

41

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

18-34

Men

35-49

Overall

Women

Small Rural

Large Rural

50-64

n/a

44

45

46

43

42

43

43

44

43

40

51

47

46

48

45

44

45

45

45

44

43

n/a

n/a

48

46

46

45

45

45

n/a

n/a

42

n/a

n/a

48

47

45

42

44

43

n/a

n/a

40

n/a

n/a

50

48

46

44

46

46

n/a

n/a

43

2017 Unsealed Roads Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaperformance detailed percentages

5

5

5

5

6

7

5

9

4

6

6

5

6

6

4

5

21

20

22

22

20

22

21

25

20

20

22

20

24

20

20

19

28

29

30

30

29

29

29

28

28

28

28

28

26

28

29

30

23

22

22

22

24

21

22

18

25

23

23

23

25

24

24

20

16

16

15

14

16

15

14

8

17

18

17

15

15

17

18

14

7

7

7

7

4

7

9

13

6

5

6

8

4

5

6

11

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Unsealed Roads Performance

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: 18


2017 business and community developmentimportance index scores

73

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

68

67

Regional Centres

18-34

Women

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

50-64

Men

65+

Interface

n/a

72

72

73

71

70

69

69

67

69

n/a

69

71

70

72

69

69

67

68

67

n/a

70

71

71

n/a

69

69

67

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

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Business/Community Development Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 business and community developmentimportance detailed percentages

21

22

20

20

18

25

21

20

23

22

23

22

19

43

43

42

45

40

46

42

42

43

48

42

40

42

28

27

31

27

32

23

29

29

28

25

29

30

28

5

4

5

5

6

4

5

6

4

4

5

6

6

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

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

2017 Business/Community Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7


2017 business and community development performance index scores

65

62

61

60

60

60

59

59

59

59

58

56

Small Rural

18-34

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

35-49

Men

Large Rural

Interface

Regional Centres

50-64

62

63

59

62

60

60

59

59

58

58

61

56

61

64

61

63

61

60

59

59

60

63

54

58

n/a

65

62

n/a

63

62

60

60

n/a

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

2017 Business/Community Development Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2017 business and community developmentperformance detailed percentages

7

7

8

8

6

5

8

7

12

7

7

8

7

6

7

33

33

34

35

31

31

33

33

43

34

32

39

33

28

30

32

29

31

30

34

35

35

31

23

32

33

32

33

34

30

9

10

9

8

7

8

9

10

7

9

8

8

9

11

7

3

3

3

2

1

2

5

3

3

3

3

2

3

4

3

16

17

15

17

22

17

10

16

11

15

18

10

15

17

23

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2017 Business/Community Development Performance

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


2017 tourism developmentimportance index scores

70

64

63

63

63

62

62

61

59

53

Regional Centres

65+

50-64

Large Rural

Women

Overall

35-49

Men

18-34

Interface

n/a

64

64

67

65

63

64

62

62

57

64

67

67

67

66

65

65

63

59

50

n/a

66

65

n/a

67

65

64

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

n/a

n/a

2017 Tourism Development Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences

*Caution: small sample size < n=30


2017 tourism developmentimportance detailed percentages

16

18

19

18

9

23

16

16

16

14

16

17

16

6

6

34

34

36

37

27

40

35

33

35

31

32

36

38

43

44

34

35

32

31

34

28

37

34

34

35

35

33

32

34

33

12

10

10

10

23

6

9

13

12

17

13

10

9

14

14

3

3

3

2

6

1

2

4

2

3

3

4

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user*

Household user*%


2017 Tourism Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7



2017 tourism development performance index scores

67

65

65

64

64

63

63

63

61

61

56

54

Small Rural

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Women

18-34

65+

Overall

35-49

Men

50-64

Interface

Metropolitan

64

64

71

64

64

62

63

63

62

60

56

54

63

66

67

64

64

65

63

61

62

62

53

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

64

66

64

62

62

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

2017 Tourism Development Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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



2017 tourism developmentperformance detailed percentages

13131213

45

1513

24121414131214

1111

3434

3536

2425

3740

3334

3435

3533

321416

292728

2831

382927

202928

3226

3027

2828

9999

1312

78

10108

81010

82019

3332

32

42

54

33

33

31212

12131313

2518

911

711

148

1212

161414

2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 OverallMetropolitan



MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+Personal user*

Household user*%


2017 Tourism Development Performance

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


DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS


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.

2017 GENDER AND AGE profile

Gender Age

49%51%MenWomen

8%

18%

24%23%

27%18-2425-3435-4950-6465+

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 68


S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11

2017 HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

2017 Household Structure

%

13

7

3

3

23

26

22

4

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under livingat home

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home

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

Do not wish to answer


2017 years lived in area

2017 Years Lived in Area

14

15

16

13

15

13

10

14

14

25

16

6

7

17

16

15

28

14

17

13

16

17

21

25

10

9

24

25

22

33

27

24

20

24

23

23

32

23

16

18

17

20

12

19

20

16

17

18

25

11

22

15

28

27

27

15

25

27

40

28

28

7

16

39

54

2017 Overall

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

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: 15


2017 Home ownership

2017 Own or Rent

83

79

82

83

83

81

80

80

91

85

81

67

82

91

93

15

20

17

16

16

18

18

17

8

13

17

30

16

6

6

2017 Overall

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


2017 languages spoken at home2017 Countries of Birth

2017 Languages Spoken- Top Mentions Only -

%

2017 Countries of Birth- Top Mentions Only -

%

54

6

5

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

English only

ITALIAN

VIETNAMESE

HINDI

CHINESE

GREEK

ARABIC

SPANISH

CROATIAN

FRENCH

47

7

6

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

Australia

INDIA

CHINA

OTHER ASIAN

UNITED KINGDOM

GERMANY

GREECE

OTHER EUROPEAN

OTHER AMERICAS

NEW ZEALAND

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3 Note: Respondents could name multiple languages 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


828181

7065

6158

5151

4224

2322

211818

171515

1413

1212

55

807979

6563

5851

4749

3921202019

171615

131413

1110

845

Appearance of public areasParking facilities

Waste managementRecreational facilities

Local streets & footpathsSealed local roads

Art centres & librariesInforming the community

Unsealed roadsCommunity & cultural

Enforcement of local lawsConsultation & engagement

Environmental sustainabilityBus/community dev./tourism

Town planning policyCommunity decisions

Planning & building permitsLobbying

Business & community dev.Population growth

Emergency & disaster mngtFamily support servicesElderly support services

Disadvantaged support serv.Tourism development

Total household usePersonal use

%

2017 personal and household use and experience of council services Percentage results

Experience of Services

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: 15

APPENDIX FURTHER PROJECT INFORMATION


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 Overall 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 2012-2017 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

Appendix: Background and objectives


Demographic Actual survey

sample size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error at 95%

confidence interval

State-wide 27907 27200 +/-0.6Men 12608 13388 +/-0.9Women 15299 13812 +/-0.8Metropolitan 7300 7200 +/-1.1Interface 2500 2400 +/-2.0Regional Centres 3600 3600 +/-1.6Large Rural 8102 7600 +/-1.1Small Rural 6405 6400 +/-1.218-34 years 3288 6943 +/-1.735-49 years 5532 6652 +/-1.350-64 years 8713 6188 +/-1.065+ years 10374 7418 +/-1.0

The sample size for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=27,907. 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=27,907 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 3,081,000 people aged 18 years or over, according to ABS estimates.

Appendix: Margins of error


In 2017, 68 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 2012-2016 vary slightly to those participating in 2017, and that council grouping classifications significantly changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results can not be made to any period prior to 2015.

Appendix: Analysis and reportinG

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 Horsham Colac Otway BulokeFrankston Whittlesea Latrobe Corangamite Central GoldfieldsGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura East Gippsland Gannawarra

Greater Dandenong Wangaratta Glenelg HepburnKingston Warrnambool Golden Plains Hindmarsh

Knox Wodonga Macedon Ranges IndigoManningham Mitchell LoddonMaroondah Moira MansfieldMelbourne Moorabool Murrindindi

Monash Mount Alexander PyreneesMoonee Valley Moyne Queenscliffe

Moreland South Gippsland West WimmeraPort Phillip Southern Grampians Yarriambiack

Stonnington Surf CoastWhitehorse Swan Hill

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


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 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.

Appendix: Analysis and reporting

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


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


Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a particular service area. In this context, index scores indicate:a) how well council is seen to be performing in a particular service area; orb) the level of importance placed on a particular service area.

For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be categorised as follows:

Appendix: index score implications

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100 Council is performing very well in this service area

This service area is seen to be extremely important

60 – 75 Council is performing well in this service area, but there is room for improvement

This service area is seen to be very important

50 – 60 Council is performing satisfactorily in this service area but needs to improve

This service area is seen to be fairly important

40 – 50 Council is performing poorlyin this service area

This service area is seen to be somewhat important

0 – 40 Council is performing very poorlyin this service area

This service area is seen to be not that important


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.

Appendix: index score significant difference calculation


Core, Optional and Tailored QuestionsOver and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2017 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 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.



ReportingEvery council that participated in the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with this State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed, which is available at:

https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey

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


https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.CSS: 2017 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.Statewide average: The average result for all participating councils in the State.Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by and only reported to the commissioning council.Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Appendix: Glossary of terms

Contact Us:03 8685 8555

John ScalesManaging Director

Mark ZukerManaging Director

There ARE OVER

6 million peoplein victoria...

find out what they'rethinking.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungtuyen
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

2017 STATE-WIDE Research Report - Local … · coordinated approach allows for far more cost...

Documents