Background and objectives - Cardinia Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the...

2J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Cardinia Shire Council

Background and objectives

Survey methodology and sampling

Further information

Key findings & recommendations

Summary of findings

Detailed findings

• Key core measure: Overall performance

• Key core measure: Customer service

• Key core measure: Council direction indicators

• Individual service areas

• Detailed demographics

Appendix A: Detailed survey tabulations

Appendix B: Further project information


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Cardinia Shire Council.

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 Cardinia Shire Council 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.


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Cardinia Shire Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of Cardinia Shire Council as determined by the

most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available

phone records, including up to 10% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within

Cardinia Shire Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in Cardinia Shire Council. 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 the

Cardinia Shire Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’ denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two or more response categories being combined

into one category for simplicity of reporting.

• 2016, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.


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


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


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

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

Further, results shown in 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.

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

among this group in 2016.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Interface

Cardinia

18-34

State-wide

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 Appendix B, including:

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Contacts

For 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.

J00533 Community Satisfaction Survey 2017 - Cardinia Shire Council

70

67

65

Waste management

Emergency & disaster management

Recreational facilities

81

41

78

51

79

54

-40-27 -25

Unsealed roads

PerformanceImportance

Population

growth

Sealed local

roads

Net differential

Council Interface State-wide

6057 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.


The overall performance index score of 57 for Cardinia Shire Council represents a three point

decline on the 2016 result. This continues the downward trend in overall performance observed from

the peak index score of 63 in 2014. Overall performance ratings have returned to their lowest level,

equal to the 2012 index score.

Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance is two points below the average rating for

councils State-wide and is statistically significantly lower (at the 95% confidence interval) than

the average rating for councils in the Interface group (index scores of 59 and 60 respectively).

Perceptions of overall performance have decreased among all demographic and geographic sub-

groups with the exception of residents aged 50 to 64 years.

Residents of the Growth area (index score of 60, down four points from 2016) and 18 to 34 year

olds (index score of 58, down nine points from 2016) rate overall performance significantly lower

in 2017.

Residents are three times as likely to rate Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance as ‘good’ (very

good or good, 41%) than ‘poor’ (very poor or poor, 14%). Another 43% sit mid-scale providing an

‘average’ rating.


Review of the core performance measures (as shown on page 18) shows that Cardinia Shire

Council’s performance on five of the seven measures has experienced a decline compared to

Council’s own results in 2016 (although on four of these measures the decline is not significant).

Overall council direction and customer service comprise the exceptions. In the case of

council direction (index score of 51), Cardinia Shire Council’s performance rating is equal to that

of the 2016 result. Performance ratings in the area of customer service have improved (index

score of 66, two points higher than 2016).

Perceptions of consultation and engagement have declined significantly in the past 12

months, dropping five points to an index score of 49. This result is also significantly lower than

the average ratings for councils State-wide and in the Interface group (index scores of 55 and 53

respectively).

Cardinia Shire Council’s lobbying performance (index score of 51) is also significantly lower

than both the State-wide and Interface group council averages (both 54).

Cardinia Shire Council performs best in the area of customer service (index score of 66). However,

the current rating remains lower than that achieved in the past (index score of 73 in 2015 and

2013).

Two thirds (65%) of Cardinia Shire Council residents have had recent contact with Council.

Over a quarter (28%) rate Council’s customer service as ‘very good’, with a further 34% rating

customer service as ‘good’. There are no significant differences in perceptions of customer

service by demographic or geographic sub-groups.


Beyond customer service, another area where Cardinia Shire Council is well regarded is waste

management. With a performance index score of 70, it is the highest rated individual service area

among residents. This is despite experiencing a significant four point decline on the 2016 result.

This decline has been driven by significantly lower ratings in 2017 among women (index score of

68, down 7 points from 2016), 18 to 34 year olds (67, down 8 points) and residents from the

Southern Rural area (59, down 17 points). This latter group rate Council performance of waste

management significantly lower than Council’s average on this measure, suggesting this is the

area to look to implement performance improvement strategies.

Waste management has consistently been rated highest of the individual service areas. It is also

considered one of the more important service areas (importance index score of 78).

The current result is on par with the State-wide and Interface group averages (performance index

score of 71 for each).

Emergency and disaster management (performance index score of 67) is another area where

Council is rated more highly compared to other areas. It is the second highest performing individual

service area tested and is considered the most important area (importance index of 82). While

important, only 9% of residents have personally used this service area.

As with waste management, residents of the Southern Rural area (index score of 60) rate this

service area significantly lower than Council’s average.

Recreational facilities performs third among individual service areas (performance index of 65), just

behind emergency and disaster management. However recreational facilities are rated as lower in

importance (importance index of 72), although it has much higher usage (61% of residents have

personally used this service area).


In addition to waste management (previously mentioned), significant declines in 2017 include five

point drops on the measures of consultation and engagement (index score of 49), family support

services (61), the appearance of public areas (61) and a four point drop on the enforcement of local

laws (57).

Performance ratings on all of these measures (and indeed almost all service levels) are at their

lowest levels to date. Attention should be turned to these areas to ensure performance ratings do not

decline further.

Aside from the area of waste management, performance ratings on these measures are

significantly below both State-wide and Interface council averages.

The area that stands out as being most in need of Council attention is the maintenance of unsealed

roads. With a performance index score of 41, Council is seen to be performing least well in this

service area. This result is significantly lower than the State-wide and Interface council averages

(performance index scores of 44 and 45 respectively).

Unsealed road maintenance ranks second highest in terms of importance (importance index score

of 81).

Feedback from residents on what they consider Council most needs to do to improve its

performance in the next 12 months supports this finding, with unsealed road maintenance

volunteered by 11% of residents.

Southern Rural residents are particularly critical of performance in this area, rating performance

significantly lower than the Council average, with an index score of 27. Conversely, residents in the

Growth area (index score of 47) rate Council significantly higher.


For the coming 12 months, Cardinia Shire Council should pay particular attention to the service

areas where stated importance exceeds rated performance by 20 or more points. Key priorities

include:

Unsealed roads maintenance (margin of 40 points)

Population growth (margin of 27 points)

Sealed local roads (margin of 25 points)

Making community decisions (margin of 23 points)

Local streets & footpaths (margin of 23 points)

Consultation & engagement (margin of 22 points)

Informing the community (margin of 20 points).

Consideration should also be given to residents of the Southern Rural and Hills areas, who appear to

be most driving negative opinion in 2017.

On the positive side, Council should maintain its relatively strong performance in the area of

customer service, and aim to shore up service areas that are currently rated higher than others, such

as waste management, emergency & disaster management and recreational facilities.

It is also important to learn from what is working amongst other groups, especially residents in the

Growth area, and use these lessons to build performance experience and perceptions in other

areas.


An approach we recommend is to further mine the survey data to better understand the profile of these

over and under-performing demographic groups. This can be achieved via additional consultation and

data interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or via the dashboard portal available to the

council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the coded open ended responses are generic

summaries only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed cross tabulations and the actual

verbatim responses, with a view to understanding the responses of the key gender and age groups,

especially any target groups identified as requiring attention.

A personal briefing by senior JWS Research representatives is also available to assist in

providing both explanation and interpretation of the results. Please contact JWS Research on

03 8685 8555.


• None applicableHigher results in 2017

(Significantly higher result than 2016)

• Consultation and

engagement

• Enforcement of local

laws

• Family support services

• Appearance of public

areas

• Waste management

Lower results in 2017

(Significantly lower result than 2016)

• ‘Growth’ residentsMost favourably disposed

towards Council

• ‘Hills’ residents

• ‘Southern Rural’ residents

Least favourably disposed

towards Council


68

73

69

73

6466

57

6163

6160

575755 55

5654

49

5654 54

53

5755

57

5456 56

55 5553

515152

5553

51 51

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Customer Service

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Advocacy

Overall Council Direction


Performance MeasuresCardinia

2017

Cardinia

2016

Interface

2017

State-

wide

2017

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 57 60 60 59 Growth Hills

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

49 54 53 55Aged 18-

34 yearsHills

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

51 53 54 54Growth,

35-49

years

Hills

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

53 54 55 54Aged 18-

34 years,

Growth

Hills

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

54 57 59 53Aged 35-

49 years,

Growth

Southern

Rural

CUSTOMER SERVICE 66 64 69 69Aged 65+

yearsHills

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 51 51 53 53Aged 18-

34 years

Southern

Rural


5

2

5

5

9

28

36

23

16

24

37

34

43

38

40

36

30

17

9

19

12

14

12

8

5

6

5

5

12

10

1

12

22

15

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

16 63 15 6Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


71

67

64

64

49

49

37

20

20

19

16

15

15

14

9

9

5

69

65

62

61

47

46

33

19

18

18

14

13

14

13

8

9

5

Appearance of public areas

Sealed local roads

Local streets & footpaths


Informing the community

Unsealed roads

Community & cultural

Consultation & engagement

Community decisions

Enforcement of local laws

Family support services

Town planning policy

Business & community dev.

Population growth

Disadvantaged support serv.

Emergency & disaster mngt

Tourism development

Total household use

Personal use

%

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 Councils asked group: 2


81

78

79

76

77

71

74

69

72

72

66

82

74

74

Unsealed roads

Population growth

Sealed local roads

Community decisions







Lobbying




41

51

54

53

54

49

54

52

56

57

51

67

61

61

Importance Performance Net Differential

-40

-27

-25

-23

-23

-22

-20

-17

-17

-15

-15

-15

-13

-13

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,

suggesting further investigation is necessary:


83

80

79

79

80

78

77

74

76

75

73

73

73

73

72

70

68

64

52

81

83

79

76

77

77

77

72

75

76

70

n/a

72

70

71

67

66

60

50

n/a

78

78

79

78

77

77

72

73

72

72

n/a

71

71

72

69

68

60

49

n/a

81

n/a

79

81

82

n/a

76

76

74

75

n/a

74

72

75

n/a

69

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

81

79

78

78

77

76

74

74

74

72

72

72

71

69

68

66

57

46


Unsealed roads

Sealed local roads

Population growth

Waste management


Community decisions










Lobbying


Tourism development

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Priority Area Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


52

47

41

38

35

32

28

37

30

28

30

23

24

30

24

17

22

9

5

30

34

39

42

44

43

46

37

43

44

39

46

42

37

39

45

35

31

20

11

15

12

19

18

18

20

21

19

25

20

28

27

25

25

30

29

44

34

4

3

5

1

3

3

5

2

5

3

6

2

4

5

6

6

9

13

32

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

3

2

3

3

7

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

2


Unsealed roads

Population growth

Sealed local roads

Waste management

Community decisions











Lobbying


Tourism development

%

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

Individual Service Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?



74

69

67

64

66

66

60

61

58

57

57

55

54

53

53

53

53

54

41

75

70

66

66

67

66

63

64

n/a

55

57

59

54

55

55

57

53

56

45

75

n/a

66

66

63

64

63

61

n/a

57

56

58

56

57

55

57

51

55

44

75

n/a

67

64

63

67

n/a

65

n/a

n/a

51

58

n/a

54

56

54

n/a

55

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

70

67

65

63

61

61

59

57

56

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

50

49

41

Waste management









Sealed local roads



Community decisions


Lobbying

Population growth

Tourism development


Unsealed roads

2017 Priority Area Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation of significant differences


Individual Service Areas Performance

24

15

12

13

10

12

9

9

6

6

6

8

6

5

2

2

5

5

2

46

43

38

36

36

33

37

31

31

30

28

24

23

24

23

23

17

16

17

19

27

19

38

29

26

30

30

35

24

41

30

30

36

38

27

28

40

40

8

9

5

8

8

14

12

12

8

6

17

17

16

14

19

8

25

12

14

3

3

3

4

3

14

12

6

3

3

4

10

6

5

6

3

17

5

3

1

3

23

1

14

2

1

12

17

31

4

11

20

15

12

37

9

22

24

Waste management






Sealed local roads





Population growth


Community decisions



Unsealed roads

Lobbying

Tourism development

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

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?



Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n s

tate

-wid

e

ave

rag

e

-None Applicable -Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Informing the community

-Enforcement of local laws

-Family support services

-Disadvantaged support

serv.

-Recreational facilities

-Appearance of public

areas

-Community & cultural

-Emergency & disaster

mngt

-Unsealed roads

-Tourism development


Sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e Sig

nific

an

tly lo

we

r tha

n g

rou

p

ave

rag

e

-None Applicable -Consultation &

engagement

-Lobbying

-Enforcement of local laws

-Family support services

-Appearance of public

areas

-Unsealed roads

-Sealed local roads

-Tourism development


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

Cardinia Shire

Council

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Unsealed roads

3. Sealed roads

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Community

decisions

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Interface

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Population

growth

3. Local streets &

footpaths

Regional Centres

1. Community

decisions

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Community

decisions

3. Waste

management

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

Cardinia Shire

Council

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Lobbying

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing &

weed control

Interface

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Art centres &

libraries

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Planning

permits

Large Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Community &

cultural

3. Traffic

management

Small Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development


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)

Cardinia Shire

Council

1. Waste

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Recreational

facilities

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Appearance of

public areas

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Art centres &

libraries

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Community &

cultural

Cardinia Shire

Council

1. Unsealed roads

2. Consultation &

engagement

3. Tourism

development

Metropolitan

1. Planning

permits

2. Population

growth

3. Parking facilities

Interface

1. Unsealed roads

2. Planning

permits

3. Population

growth

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Slashing &

weed control

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning

permits


20

11

9

8

5

5

5

5

5

8

Sealed Road Maintenance

Unsealed RoadMaintenance


Communication

Financial Management

Infrastructure

Parks/Gardens

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Public Safety

Nothing

2017 Areas for Improvement

%

Q17. What does Cardinia Shire Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?



AR

EA

S F

OR

IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

T

- Sealed Road Maintenance: 20%

(up 4 points from 2016)

- Unsealed Road Maintenance: 11%

(equal points on 2016)

- Community Consultation: 9%

(up 2 points from 2016)


60

60

59

58

58

57

57

57

56

56

53

51

Interface

Growth

State-wide

18-34

65+

Women

Cardinia

Men

50-64

35-49

Southern Rural

Hills

61

64

59

67

59

61

60

59

52

57

59

52

62

65

60

68

58

64

61

58

59

55

58

57

n/a

66

61

66

65

63

63

63

58

61

60

61

n/a

64

60

68

59

61

61

62

57

59

59

59

n/a

58

60

63

57

58

57

56

52

54

60

53

2017 Overall Performance 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Cardinia Shire Council, not just on

one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?


Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2017 Overall Performance

5

11

12

12

9

5

9

10

6

4

3

6

4

2

6

7

9

36

37

40

41

43

38

36

36

39

31

32

36

36

40

36

32

35

43

38

34

36

34

38

37

39

42

43

47

42

44

50

39

41

40

9

9

10

7

10

11

10

9

9

9

11

8

10

7

13

13

3

5

5

5

3

3

5

5

4

2

13

7

6

3

2

6

5

9

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Cardinia Shire Council, not just on

one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor?



Overall contact with Cardinia Shire Council

Most contact with Cardinia Shire Council

Least contact with Cardinia Shire Council

Customer service rating

Most satisfied with customer service

Least satisfied with customer service


• Aged 65+ years

• Index score of 66, up 2 points on 2016

• Aged 18-34 years



• 65%, up 2 points on 2016


71

71

69

67

66

65

65

65

62

61

61

59

Hills

50-64

Southern Rural

65+

35-49

Cardinia

Men

Women

Growth

State-wide

Interface

18-34

2017 Contact with Council

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with Cardinia? This may have

been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as

Facebook or Twitter?




2017 Contact with Council

61

72 7270

6365

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 Cardinia? This may have been

in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as

Facebook or Twitter?



72

71

70

69

69

69

66

62

62

59

58

56

65+

Growth

18-34

Interface

State-wide

Women

Cardinia

Men

35-49

50-64

Southern Rural

Hills

68

67

66

70

69

68

64

60

59

64

66

58

74

78

78

72

70

78

73

67

67

71

68

68

74

69

66

n/a

72

71

69

67

73

63

62

73

71

73

76

n/a

71

75

73

71

72

70

73

72

67

69

74

n/a

71

72

68

63

65

65

72

65

2017 Customer Service Rating2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Cardinia Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in

mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 6



28

26

35

32

38

29

30

31

33

20

18

26

29

24

25

27

40

34

36

35

33

34

37

36

34

33

28

46

32

37

47

35

21

29

17

15

17

19

13

17

18

18

18

21

8

16

18

18

15

20

14

8

7

6

7

6

8

8

8

9

8

7

8

9

3

10

12

10

10

13

5

7

7

8

6

7

5

19

21

15

6

6

14

16

6

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

4

1

3

1

3

2

4

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Customer Service Rating

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Cardinia Shire Council for customer service? Please keep in

mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.

Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.

Councils asked state-wide: 68 Councils asked group: 6


• ‘Southern Rural’ residents


• 63% stayed about the same, up 1 point on 2016

• 16% improved, down 1 point on 2016

• 15% deteriorated, down 1 point on 2016

Least satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Most satisfied with Council Direction from Q6

Council Direction from Q6


56

53

53

53

51

51

51

50

47

46

46

44

18-34

Growth

Interface

State-wide

65+

Women

Cardinia

Men

Hills

50-64

35-49

Southern Rural

56

53

54

51

48

51

51

50

51

42

51

43

63

56

54

53

46

55

53

51

50

52

46

50

53

56

n/a

53

54

54

55

57

55

51

61

54

59

54

n/a

53

55

51

52

54

49

45

49

51

58

51

n/a

52

52

50

51

51

49

45

46

53

2016 2015 2014 2013 20122017 Overall Direction

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance?




16

17

20

22

19

15

19

17

19

12

10

17

15

23

10

9

21

63

62

63

61

61

65

62

65

64

64

59

61

65

62

66

70

53

15

16

14

12

15

14

13

12

13

17

22

17

13

10

17

16

19

6

4

3

4

5

6

6

6

5

6

9

5

7

5

6

5

7

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

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 Cardinia Shire Council’s overall performance?



76

76

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

71

71

71

67

64

65+

50-64

Personal user

Household user

Hills

State-wide

35-49

Interface

Women

Growth

Cardinia

Men

Southern Rural

18-34

76

77

73

72

76

75

72

75

74

73

73

72

71

71

74

74

74

73

73

74

71

72

72

69

70

67

69

64

73

80

76

72

75

74

71

n/a

73

68

71

68

71

63

72

78

76

76

72

73

73

n/a

74

72

72

70

70

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Consultation and Engagement Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?




24

27

22

24

25

29

26

23

29

23

22

27

12

31

29

32

25

24

42

41

43

41

41

41

43

43

47

34

43

41

42

35

48

50

47

48

27

27

27

29

26

24

25

28

18

33

29

25

36

31

19

14

28

28

4

3

7

5

4

4

4

3

3

7

3

4

5

3

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

3

2

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user

%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?



55

54

53

52

51

50

49

49

49

48

48

48

47

46

State-wide

Personal user

Interface

Household user

18-34

Growth

Men

Cardinia

Women

Southern Rural

50-64

35-49

65+

Hills

54

51

55

51

60

56

53

54

55

54

45

54

51

49

56

56

57

58

58

58

51

56

60

52

54

54

54

55

57

61

n/a

60

52

55

55

55

54

54

53

58

56

55

57

56

n/a

56

62

57

53

55

57

56

49

54

51

51

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

60

55

57

60

60

52

53

59

50

2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?




2

8

5

6

10

7

7

6

1

3

5

3

2

2

1

2

6

8

7

23

27

33

32

24

34

29

28

24

20

22

24

22

24

22

26

19

27

25

38

34

32

33

36

37

32

33

40

32

33

37

38

43

41

31

29

39

38

19

16

15

13

15

8

15

16

18

23

17

19

18

19

19

20

17

15

17

6

6

5

6

5

6

6

5

5

9

11

6

7

2

7

9

12

7

7

12

9

11

10

10

8

10

12

11

14

13

11

13

10

11

11

17

5

6

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Consultation and Engagement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?



69

69

68

68

68

67

67

67

66

65

62

62

State-wide

35-49

65+

50-64

Women

Hills

Interface

Growth

Cardinia

Men

Southern Rural

18-34

69

71

65

66

71

68

70

69

68

65

67

68

69

67

64

69

69

68

68

67

66

63

64

66

70

72

68

75

70

68

n/a

66

68

65

72

60

70

68

68

73

72

68

n/a

71

69

66

66

68

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Lobbying Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




22

23

21

20

22

23

21

19

29

23

21

22

14

24

28

26

35

37

34

40

39

39

37

38

27

29

32

37

36

34

31

38

29

27

32

31

30

27

28

28

33

28

28

30

33

31

28

21

9

5

8

6

5

7

7

10

6

12

13

6

10

8

8

11

3

4

2

2

1

2

3

1

5

7

3

3

3

1

4

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

2

2

3

2

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



54

54

53

53

52

52

51

51

50

50

48

44

Interface

State-wide

Growth

35-49

18-34

Women

Cardinia

Men

Southern Rural

65+

50-64

Hills

55

53

54

55

56

55

53

49

54

54

43

49

56

55

57

54

58

59

55

52

53

53

55

55

n/a

56

54

54

55

55

55

55

60

59

50

53

n/a

55

56

50

63

56

56

55

56

56

52

54

n/a

55

57

51

62

56

56

56

60

55

53

51

2017 Lobbying Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?




5

5

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

2

3

4

5

7

4

2

3

16

21

27

24

27

30

24

23

16

16

18

14

18

15

20

13

15

40

30

31

37

32

36

31

32

43

30

37

46

34

48

34

39

35

12

12

9

8

12

11

13

11

13

11

13

12

13

12

15

10

10

5

5

4

5

3

5

5

4

2

12

6

4

5

5

2

6

6

22

27

25

22

20

14

22

23

20

30

22

18

26

12

25

29

31

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

2012 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Lobbying Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?



80

80

79

79

79

78

77

77

76

76

75

74

72

71

Personal user

50-64

State-wide

Interface

Household user

65+

Growth

Women

35-49

Cardinia

Hills

Men

18-34

Southern Rural

78

77

80

79

76

78

77

80

77

77

78

74

78

78

81

81

80

78

81

77

77

80

74

77

77

74

78

78

80

87

79

n/a

78

79

78

79

77

77

76

75

71

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

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?




32

31

36

34

39

39

33

32

31

28

37

27

33

40

32

38

34

43

48

40

44

42

41

47

42

32

46

41

45

42

39

48

45

44

18

15

20

20

15

15

15

15

31

19

16

17

23

14

13

14

16

3

1

2

1

2

2

2

3

4

2

3

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

2

3

5

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

4

2

1

2

4

3

2

5

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Community Decisions Made Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



56

56

55

54

54

53

53

52

50

50

50

50

49

46

18-34

Growth

Interface

State-wide

Women

Cardinia

35-49

Men

Household user

65+

50-64

Personal user

Southern Rural

Hills

60

56

56

54

55

54

53

53

47

53

46

45

58

47

63

56

58

55

59

54

45

49

53

52

54

54

52

53

56

56

n/a

57

55

56

57

57

62

57

54

63

58

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




5

5

6

6

6

6

7

2

3

6

4

5

6

4

6

5

5

24

29

28

31

29

29

25

19

22

22

25

27

23

21

21

26

28

36

35

34

35

34

34

36

34

39

37

35

41

32

38

32

38

34

14

14

11

11

14

13

14

15

14

17

12

12

18

16

12

16

16

5

6

8

5

7

5

2

10

9

5

5

2

3

8

10

10

10

15

12

14

12

10

13

15

20

14

12

18

12

18

13

20

3

8

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Community Decisions Made Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?



84

82

81

80

80

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

77

76

Southern Rural

50-64

Hills

65+

Women

Household user

Interface

35-49

Personal user

Cardinia

State-wide

Men

Growth

18-34

83

80

81

80

80

81

79

82

81

79

78

77

76

74

82

82

76

76

83

79

77

80

79

79

76

75

79

78

80

79

78

79

82

79

n/a

81

80

78

77

74

77

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




38

38

40

36

35

38

34

39

51

37

38

36

40

42

32

37

38

42

42

39

45

44

42

44

45

33

42

42

36

39

43

56

43

42

19

17

18

14

18

18

21

15

16

18

19

26

19

14

12

19

19

1

2

3

4

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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?



60

60

59

55

55

55

54

54

54

53

53

49

46

42

35-49

Growth

Interface

Men

65+

Personal user

Household user

Cardinia

50-64

State-wide

Women

18-34

Hills

Southern Rural

53

64

60

55

63

58

58

57

51

54

60

61

51

46

53

63

60

55

57

54

54

55

55

55

55

56

52

45

57

62

n/a

59

63

58

59

57

61

55

54

50

54

43

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




9

12

10

13

11

13

11

6

3

10

7

3

13

10

9

10

10

37

36

36

37

32

38

40

31

29

37

37

35

41

32

39

36

36

30

28

27

20

28

27

33

22

24

30

29

31

29

32

27

29

30

12

16

17

18

16

13

9

16

22

11

14

17

8

11

12

10

10

12

7

9

9

12

8

7

21

23

12

12

14

10

13

12

14

14

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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?



77

76

76

76

74

74

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

71

65+

50-64

Hills

Women

Interface

State-wide

Personal user

Cardinia

Growth

Household user

35-49

Men

Southern Rural

18-34

77

77

76

79

77

76

75

76

75

75

75

72

78

75

76

77

75

77

74

75

74

75

76

74

72

72

72

75

77

76

71

75

n/a

75

75

73

74

75

75

71

74

68

75

78

76

79

n/a

75

79

76

76

78

77

73

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Informing Community Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?




28

32

31

25

33

30

31

27

28

30

25

31

26

25

32

31

29

28

46

44

41

45

44

43

43

45

55

39

47

46

46

45

45

49

42

42

20

20

24

26

19

23

21

23

12

19

21

20

17

25

19

20

24

24

5

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

11

7

2

9

5

2

4

5

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Informing Community Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



60

59

57

57

55

55

55

54

54

54

53

52

52

51

65+

State-wide

Personal user

Household user

Southern Rural

Interface

Women

Growth

Cardinia

35-49

Men

Hills

18-34

50-64

53

59

62

62

59

55

56

56

55

54

54

50

61

50

56

61

60

60

58

56

62

61

59

59

56

54

60

59

65

62

63

63

60

n/a

59

58

58

58

57

55

54

57

61

61

63

63

60

n/a

59

59

58

55

58

57

65

53

n/a

60

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 Informing Community Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?




6

10

11

9

13

11

8

5

6

9

4

8

3

4

5

15

8

8

28

29

35

35

28

35

29

29

27

26

26

30

22

30

31

32

33

33

41

35

34

37

34

32

37

42

36

42

48

33

52

38

34

32

40

39

17

16

12

13

16

13

17

17

18

17

16

19

17

16

23

11

14

14

4

6

6

5

3

5

5

4

6

4

3

5

2

4

6

7

4

4

4

5

2

2

6

3

4

3

7

3

3

5

3

6

1

3

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Informing Community Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?



80

79

79

78

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

76

75

75

Interface

65+

Women

35-49

Household user

State-wide

Southern Rural

Growth

Personal user

Cardinia

50-64

Hills

18-34

Men

79

78

79

81

79

77

81

77

79

78

79

77

74

76

78

78

80

78

77

77

76

80

77

77

77

75

77

75

n/a

75

81

80

79

77

73

78

80

77

81

76

73

72

n/a

85

83

81

82

78

78

82

83

82

85

85

80

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




37

36

34

34

41

34

40

36

36

44

37

38

34

44

34

36

37

38

37

41

43

44

44

42

41

40

29

33

34

40

36

33

39

42

38

38

21

17

19

14

12

19

16

20

28

14

22

19

26

16

19

20

20

21

2

2

2

6

1

2

2

1

3

4

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

5

4

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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?



59

57

56

56

55

55

54

54

54

53

53

52

45

43

Growth

State-wide

Interface

18-34

Women

35-49

Personal user

Cardinia

Household user

Men

65+

50-64

Southern Rural

Hills

65

57

57

65

58

53

61

57

61

56

58

48

53

44

61

58

56

64

58

50

59

57

60

56

55

57

55

53

61

58

n/a

52

54

60

57

56

57

59

59

56

53

51

56

58

n/a

54

51

53

49

51

49

51

48

46

52

41

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




12

13

11

12

12

13

12

14

9

8

12

12

7

17

14

14

13

13

33

34

36

35

22

33

33

37

21

30

28

37

39

28

30

31

33

33

26

26

28

24

35

28

28

29

23

18

31

22

31

26

20

23

25

25

14

14

13

18

17

15

15

11

18

20

16

11

14

13

16

13

14

14

14

9

9

8

13

9

10

9

24

23

13

15

9

15

17

17

14

15

2

4

2

3

1

2

1

1

5

2

1

3

2

3

3

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


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?



78

75

74

74

73

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

69

68

65+

Women

Growth

18-34

Interface

Cardinia

Personal user

Household user

50-64

State-wide

Men

Southern Rural

Hills

35-49

74

78

78

74

73

73

76

76

70

70

68

71

66

74

71

75

74

72

71

70

75

76

71

71

65

69

65

67

75

75

72

69

n/a

72

75

74

73

70

69

77

70

74

73

79

76

76

n/a

75

77

77

74

71

70

69

75

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Law Enforcement Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?




30

32

27

29

36

27

31

31

23

33

27

33

33

24

30

34

32

31

37

37

38

39

35

38

36

39

38

29

38

37

36

35

37

43

32

34

25

24

25

24

23

26

24

23

27

29

25

24

21

32

25

20

31

31

5

5

8

6

5

6

6

4

10

5

7

4

9

5

4

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

5

2

1

3

2

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Law Enforcement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



64

60

58

58

58

57

57

57

57

55

54

53

51

49

State-wide

Interface

35-49

Growth

18-34

Men

Cardinia

50-64

Women

Hills

Southern Rural

65+

Household user

Personal user

63

61

61

63

67

59

61

54

62

59

56

57

60

60

66

65

56

65

74

63

64

61

65

63

63

59

62

62

66

n/a

63

60

61

58

61

58

64

58

65

58

60

60

65

n/a

63

65

70

66

65

62

63

62

68

58

70

72

65

n/a

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 Law Enforcement Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?




9

13

15

11

16

12

10

10

3

12

8

10

12

9

9

4

9

11

31

31

37

38

34

39

34

32

30

28

31

32

31

33

31

28

28

28

30

28

29

24

29

26

29

30

36

25

34

26

35

23

31

32

26

26

12

10

8

11

9

8

9

11

8

19

10

14

14

12

10

10

22

21

6

5

4

5

2

3

5

6

6

8

6

7

5

5

7

8

14

13

12

14

8

10

10

13

13

11

17

9

11

12

3

18

12

18

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Law Enforcement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



81

79

78

76

75

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

70

67

Personal user

Household user

18-34

Growth

Women

Cardinia

Interface

Southern Rural

State-wide

35-49

Men

65+

50-64

Hills

80

81

78

77

79

75

75

78

73

76

72

72

71

70

85

84

77

80

80

76

74

73

73

80

72

70

74

73

81

81

72

74

76

72

n/a

70

72

75

68

70

68

70

80

81

77

75

79

74

n/a

74

73

74

69

71

73

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Family Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?




30

31

35

28

31

28

31

32

18

34

29

31

40

25

25

24

36

35

43

41

42

40

41

41

40

42

52

35

42

44

38

47

37

51

55

49

19

20

16

24

20

22

21

20

18

20

18

21

15

20

30

15

6

9

5

3

5

5

5

5

5

4

6

7

7

3

4

7

5

4

2

5

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

7

2

3

1

2

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Family Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



67

65

65

63

63

62

62

62

61

60

60

60

59

59

State-wide

65+

Interface

Household user

Personal user

Growth

50-64

Men

Cardinia

Women

35-49

18-34

Southern Rural

Hills

66

65

65

67

67

69

59

65

66

66

65

69

64

58

67

71

66

70

75

69

66

65

66

68

62

68

62

66

68

70

n/a

70

73

63

61

64

64

64

67

59

65

65

67

71

n/a

73

72

70

65

64

67

70

65

69

65

64

67

n/a

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 Family Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?




6

10

12

9

15

11

9

6

7

6

6

6

5

8

3

9

22

19

30

31

34

33

31

30

30

32

27

26

29

31

33

28

32

25

31

32

24

24

22

24

24

20

19

25

18

24

26

22

26

25

25

16

28

29

6

5

5

4

5

4

5

7

3

9

5

7

10

7

2

3

9

8

3

1

2

3

2

1

2

1

9

2

2

3

2

4

2

3

7

6

31

29

25

26

24

34

36

29

37

33

32

30

24

29

36

44

2

5

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Family Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?



79

78

74

74

73

72

72

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

Household user

Personal user

Women

35-49

Growth

Cardinia

Interface

18-34

50-64

Southern Rural

State-wide

65+

Men

Hills

81

83

77

70

74

73

73

74

75

73

73

72

68

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?




30

25

26

30

32

23

34

29

32

33

35

24

27

38

39

39

43

41

39

38

49

31

38

40

36

33

44

48

40

42

20

22

24

20

20

15

27

23

18

17

24

24

16

15

13

6

4

5

6

6

5

5

5

7

9

7

2

3

4

3

3

1

2

3

2

6

4

4

2

3

1

3

6

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disadvantaged Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



61

58

58

57

57

57

57

56

56

55

54

54

54

50

State-wide

50-64

65+

Household user

Growth

Personal user

Men

Cardinia

Interface

Hills

18-34

35-49

Women

Southern Rural

61

58

61

55

62

51

57

58

58

48

56

59

59

60

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

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 Disadvantaged Support Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?




2

7

6

2

3

2

3

1

2

2

2

3

9

8

23

23

25

23

24

24

16

23

23

23

24

25

20

38

39

27

21

22

27

28

21

30

30

25

34

27

22

21

28

32

8

8

6

8

8

5

11

7

8

10

10

4

3

11

10

3

4

2

3

2

5

3

2

3

2

3

3

3

9

8

37

37

39

37

35

42

39

35

39

29

34

44

49

4

3

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disadvantaged Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?



76

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

70

35-49

Personal user

Household user

Growth

State-wide

Women

Hills

Cardinia

Interface

Men

50-64

Southern Rural

18-34

65+

74

75

75

73

73

74

72

73

73

71

73

74

73

69

76

74

73

74

72

74

69

72

72

71

73

73

72

67

74

73

73

74

72

73

67

71

n/a

69

74

68

66

72

77

75

75

74

72

75

73

74

n/a

73

75

73

72

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Recreational Facilities Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?




23

25

27

23

23

24

23

22

23

25

22

23

21

30

19

20

24

23

46

43

40

44

54

46

46

48

46

36

47

44

43

45

51

46

47

47

28

28

30

28

19

26

27

27

25

33

27

29

33

24

24

30

28

28

2

3

3

3

3

4

3

1

5

5

2

3

2

1

4

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Recreational Facilities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



70

68

68

67

67

67

67

66

65

65

63

62

62

62

State-wide

Men

Household user

50-64

Personal user

65+

Growth

Interface

Cardinia

35-49

18-34

Southern Rural

Women

Hills

69

67

67

64

67

73

70

67

67

64

68

70

67

59

70

66

68

67

68

70

69

68

66

64

66

67

67

61

71

67

69

65

69

72

69

n/a

66

66

64

61

66

66

70

67

68

65

68

70

70

n/a

67

64

71

68

67

61

70

n/a

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 Recreational Facilities Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?




15

18

16

18

19

22

16

17

12

13

19

11

7

19

20

19

18

18

43

44

45

39

39

43

42

44

41

43

42

44

52

36

42

39

44

46

27

25

25

30

29

22

26

27

27

25

27

26

29

28

21

27

25

24

9

7

9

7

6

7

9

9

8

10

7

11

9

12

8

6

9

9

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

6

6

2

5

3

2

4

3

2

2

3

3

2

4

4

4

4

3

5

3

2

4

3

5

6

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Recreational Facilities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?



77

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

Personal user

Household user

18-34

Interface

Growth

Hills

Men

Cardinia

65+

State-wide

Women

35-49

Southern Rural

50-64

76

75

75

75

76

72

72

74

73

74

76

75

72

72

73

73

66

73

75

68

68

72

73

73

75

74

71

78

74

74

68

n/a

76

70

69

72

75

73

75

74

66

76

77

76

75

n/a

79

75

74

76

75

74

78

78

72

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Public Areas Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?




28

26

26

24

29

26

27

27

28

32

27

29

38

23

22

24

33

32

44

46

40

45

50

47

48

47

43

32

48

40

34

49

49

49

42

42

25

26

28

27

18

24

22

23

27

31

20

29

21

27

25

27

23

24

3

1

4

3

2

2

3

3

2

5

5

2

7

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?



71

66

66

63

63

62

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

56

State-wide

Interface

35-49

65+

Hills

Women

50-64

Growth

Cardinia

Personal user

Household user

Men

Southern Rural

18-34

71

66

67

66

62

65

63

67

66

66

66

66

66

66

72

67

66

67

66

69

65

69

67

68

69

66

66

71

72

n/a

69

67

66

63

61

61

63

64

64

63

62

55

71

n/a

62

66

64

62

62

62

63

64

64

65

66

65

71

n/a

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 Public Areas Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?




13

16

16

15

14

25

17

14

13

7

15

10

9

13

14

17

12

12

36

46

45

38

40

46

43

35

35

41

30

43

29

42

37

38

37

36

38

25

29

32

32

20

30

35

44

41

41

35

45

36

35

31

35

37

8

10

6

9

10

6

7

10

5

5

7

9

14

6

6

5

10

10

4

3

2

5

2

2

3

4

2

6

6

2

4

1

6

8

5

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Public Areas Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?



62

61

61

60

60

59

58

57

57

57

57

57

56

53

Women

Personal user

State-wide

Household user

Southern Rural

35-49

65+

Cardinia

Interface

Growth

Hills

18-34

50-64

Men

66

71

62

69

62

63

61

64

63

66

62

69

59

62

65

62

62

63

59

57

62

60

59

60

60

60

61

54

61

64

62

64

57

57

63

60

n/a

61

59

59

62

58

64

64

62

62

54

60

57

61

n/a

64

59

63

60

58

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




9

16

11

11

11

12

8

7

9

14

5

12

10

9

7

9

12

11

31

33

30

34

33

35

30

30

33

33

26

35

24

37

32

32

32

33

44

41

45

41

43

39

45

47

40

35

45

42

50

35

43

45

45

43

13

7

12

11

9

11

12

14

10

14

19

7

11

18

12

11

10

12

3

2

1

3

2

2

3

1

7

5

3

3

3

1

5

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Community Activities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



70

69

69

67

66

65

65

64

63

62

60

59

58

55

Personal user

Household user

State-wide

35-49

Growth

Women

65+

Interface

Cardinia

50-64

Men

Hills

18-34

Southern Rural

66

66

69

63

67

65

65

63

64

61

63

59

65

61

70

71

69

62

67

68

68

65

66

65

64

64

70

67

71

70

70

66

68

67

73

n/a

66

66

65

65

61

61

71

70

69

63

66

64

65

n/a

64

61

64

60

66

62

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




10

13

14

16

13

17

11

11

9

8

9

11

9

11

9

13

17

16

36

39

42

36

37

42

38

40

32

26

35

38

33

43

37

33

54

52

29

29

27

31

28

25

29

28

32

27

37

21

28

27

31

31

20

22

8

11

6

5

9

5

7

6

7

19

8

8

15

3

7

4

7

7

3

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

6

3

3

2

3

1

3

3

1

14

8

8

9

10

10

13

14

14

16

8

19

12

15

14

16

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Community Activities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?



82

81

80

80

79

79

78

78

78

76

74

74

Women

Hills

65+

50-64

Interface

State-wide

Growth

Cardinia

35-49

18-34

Men

Southern Rural

81

78

79

81

81

80

80

80

80

81

79

82

80

76

80

79

79

79

79

77

80

73

75

75

77

79

80

81

n/a

79

78

78

81

72

78

74

84

81

82

82

n/a

79

82

81

84

78

79

82

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Waste Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?




35

37

35

35

38

36

37

35

42

29

29

41

33

39

36

33

44

48

43

43

49

46

45

44

41

44

43

44

43

34

48

56

18

14

19

18

12

16

16

19

17

18

24

13

19

25

15

11

3

1

3

3

1

1

2

2

1

8

5

1

5

2

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



74

73

72

71

71

71

70

70

70

68

67

59

65+

Growth

Men

State-wide

Interface

35-49

Hills

50-64

Cardinia

Women

18-34

Southern Rural

75

76

73

70

71

75

69

71

74

75

75

76

79

75

73

72

73

71

75

76

75

77

75

74

79

76

75

73

n/a

75

75

76

75

75

72

69

76

74

73

71

n/a

73

75

74

75

77

77

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




24

29

27

30

25

25

25

26

22

14

24

23

17

25

28

28

46

47

51

46

53

44

46

48

47

37

49

43

52

43

38

49

19

18

15

19

17

18

18

17

19

23

20

18

12

24

22

18

8

4

3

2

3

6

8

7

4

21

5

12

14

5

9

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

2

5

4

2

3

3

2

2

3

1

2

2

3

1

3

1

1

2

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2017 Waste Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?



78

77

76

75

72

72

72

70

70

69

69

69

67

59

50-64

Personal user

65+

Household user

State-wide

Women

35-49

Interface

Growth

Cardinia

Southern Rural

Hills

Men

18-34

74

77

74

77

73

76

77

72

73

72

74

70

69

66

78

76

73

75

72

74

72

72

71

71

71

72

68

66

79

82

77

79

72

71

75

n/a

73

72

68

73

73

62

79

77

78

76

73

77

76

n/a

76

75

72

75

73

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




24

25

23

26

30

26

23

23

23

27

21

27

12

24

37

31

34

32

39

37

40

38

38

41

37

40

39

34

39

38

31

42

43

43

48

48

25

25

26

27

26

24

26

25

25

28

24

27

38

24

15

16

11

14

6

4

5

3

1

4

5

7

4

1

9

3

11

4

2

3

4

4

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

7

4

2

5

1

2

2

2

3

4

8

5

5

5

4

6

4

6

3

4

4

3

4

2

5

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Town Planning Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?



58

55

54

53

52

51

51

50

50

49

48

46

46

45

18-34

Growth

Men

State-wide

Cardinia

Interface

35-49

Women

65+

Southern Rural

50-64

Personal user

Household user

Hills

58

54

53

52

53

52

50

53

56

53

47

44

44

50

63

58

51

54

55

55

51

59

52

52

52

50

51

54

59

60

58

55

57

n/a

58

56

56

54

53

60

61

54

62

55

54

55

54

n/a

49

54

49

57

51

56

55

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




6

7

4

8

8

5

4

8

2

1

8

3

7

7

5

3

10

9

23

26

33

29

23

26

22

23

20

27

25

21

26

21

17

28

17

16

30

29

27

27

33

30

31

29

32

32

31

29

29

26

38

28

29

34

16

15

12

10

14

14

15

15

18

18

17

15

12

19

21

12

28

26

6

7

6

6

6

7

7

4

10

7

5

6

2

7

6

11

13

13

20

16

18

21

18

19

21

21

18

16

14

26

24

22

13

18

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Town Planning Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?



88

87

85

83

83

83

82

82

82

82

80

80

80

79

Personal user

Household user

Southern Rural

Women

50-64

65+

18-34

Interface

Growth

Cardinia

Men

State-wide

35-49

Hills

88

86

82

87

85

81

83

83

84

83

79

80

83

80

85

85

76

84

81

81

82

81

83

81

78

80

81

83

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

2017 Disaster Management Importance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?




52

50

50

45

52

53

48

56

51

53

59

50

49

50

56

52

30

34

30

34

32

28

37

31

30

31

24

28

37

37

41

45

11

12

14

14

11

13

6

8

11

11

9

15

11

9

4

3

4

2

4

4

4

5

4

1

5

3

5

5

1

3

2

1

1

1

2

1

5

3

2

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disaster Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



70

70

69

68

68

67

67

67

67

66

66

65

63

60

State-wide

Growth

Interface

18-34

Men

50-64

Household user

Personal user

Cardinia

65+

Women

35-49

Hills

Southern Rural

69

74

69

72

69

62

63

62

69

70

70

70

61

67

70

74

70

77

68

65

69

67

70

69

72

65

65

70

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 Disaster Management Performance2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?




12

19

21

17

15

14

15

4

13

12

10

10

16

15

11

10

38

37

41

37

41

39

31

42

42

35

47

39

30

31

59

58

19

21

18

19

18

18

23

19

21

17

24

13

19

16

9

8

5

6

6

4

5

5

7

7

5

6

2

9

3

9

7

7

3

2

2

2

2

1

6

6

2

3

2

2

5

3

6

5

23

15

11

21

18

24

18

22

19

27

15

27

27

26

9

11

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Disaster Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?



87

87

83

80

80

80

80

78

78

76

75

75

74

71

Personal user

Household user

50-64

Women

Interface

Growth

35-49

Cardinia

Southern Rural

State-wide

65+

Men

18-34

Hills

83

83

81

78

79

82

77

79

81

76

80

79

78

71

74

77

79

81

76

81

82

76

72

75

75

71

69

71

86

84

83

81

n/a

81

83

79

73

75

80

76

71

77

87

87

82

83

n/a

83

82

79

75

75

76

73

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




41

39

40

42

43

36

44

44

30

42

37

44

41

41

44

37

58

57

39

41

30

35

34

38

36

38

41

39

40

38

33

42

43

41

34

36

12

13

22

17

17

19

13

12

16

7

12

12

12

14

10

12

7

6

5

5

6

4

4

4

4

5

7

7

7

4

10

2

1

7

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

5

3

3

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Population Growth Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



56

52

52

51

51

50

50

50

50

48

47

46

45

43

18-34

State-wide

Growth

Women

Cardinia

Men

Interface

Southern Rural

65+

35-49

Household user

50-64

Hills

Personal user

59

51

56

54

53

53

55

54

54

51

49

47

47

48

68

54

58

61

57

53

57

55

54

50

57

52

58

56

59

54

61

57

57

57

n/a

53

59

57

60

51

53

61

61

54

56

54

54

55

n/a

55

56

50

60

49

50

63

n/a

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

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?




8

10

11

9

12

7

7

11

1

4

10

6

9

7

9

7

13

12

24

28

30

30

19

24

22

24

19

31

19

29

31

22

16

24

15

23

30

23

27

32

31

29

30

31

29

27

31

29

33

33

29

22

21

19

17

18

13

11

16

16

18

19

13

11

22

12

16

18

17

17

34

30

10

9

7

6

6

7

10

9

12

14

8

12

5

12

16

11

17

15

11

12

13

12

15

16

12

6

26

13

10

12

7

9

13

19

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?



88

87

86

84

84

83

83

81

80

80

79

79

78

78

Southern Rural

Hills

50-64

Personal user

Household user

Women

65+

Cardinia

18-34

Men

Interface

State-wide

35-49

Growth

91

83

83

82

82

81

83

80

77

79

79

79

81

76

88

83

83

85

85

84

81

83

83

82

78

78

82

79

83

85

85

81

81

82

76

78

73

74

n/a

78

83

73

82

85

87

82

82

82

86

81

78

81

n/a

81

78

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

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?




47

43

49

43

44

39

41

40

60

61

45

50

45

44

57

45

51

51

34

36

35

36

40

39

36

37

27

31

33

35

36

31

29

41

35

34

15

17

13

11

14

17

18

18

11

7

18

12

16

20

11

11

11

12

3

1

2

6

1

3

3

4

1

2

3

2

5

1

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Unsealed Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



47

45

44

43

42

42

41

41

39

39

38

36

34

27

Growth

Interface

State-wide

18-34

Men

65+

35-49

Cardinia

Women

Personal user

Household user

50-64

Hills

Southern Rural

50

44

43

52

41

42

34

41

41

38

38

31

28

35

55

47

45

51

46

43

38

45

44

43

43

45

41

34

48

n/a

45

42

48

50

44

44

40

42

42

43

44

38

52

n/a

44

48

41

44

44

43

44

38

38

33

33

34

n/a

n/a

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




5

4

3

5

8

5

5

6

3

1

6

3

7

3

2

5

5

4

17

20

25

19

15

21

21

20

17

4

18

16

17

18

14

18

19

18

28

27

29

28

31

28

29

30

22

22

29

27

28

27

30

26

27

26

25

24

23

21

25

23

22

21

23

44

23

28

33

23

22

20

25

26

17

18

14

14

17

16

14

10

33

26

19

15

14

16

23

18

23

24

9

7

6

13

4

7

9

12

2

3

5

12

2

13

9

14

1

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Unsealed Roads Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?



73

72

70

70

69

69

68

68

67

67

66

64

64

61

Household user

Personal user

Growth

State-wide

35-49

Women

18-34

Cardinia

65+

Interface

Men

50-64

Hills

Southern Rural

80

84

72

70

71

73

73

70

65

69

67

69

68

67

62

61

73

69

68

70

69

67

64

67

65

68

61

65

70

71

68

69

72

70

66

69

70

n/a

68

70

72

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




17

20

18

21

21

18

18

18

12

16

19

17

20

13

18

23

22

45

45

40

44

43

40

48

38

38

43

46

48

42

43

45

52

53

30

28

35

26

28

32

28

33

33

32

28

24

34

34

27

21

21

6

3

5

7

5

6

4

6

14

7

5

7

4

5

8

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

6

2

2

2

2

4

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Business/Community Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?



62

61

60

60

59

59

59

59

57

57

56

56

53

49

Growth

35-49

18-34

State-wide

Women

Cardinia

Interface

Men

Personal user

Household user

65+

50-64

Southern Rural

Hills

62

60

62

60

60

60

58

60

59

59

61

55

61

54

65

60

67

60

64

63

63

61

62

63

61

59

61

60

66

63

63

62

64

63

n/a

61

68

67

64

59

55

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?




6

7

10

13

7

5

7

1

4

6

5

5

8

4

3

11

10

31

35

37

29

33

31

38

20

20

31

32

38

31

25

28

34

32

35

30

29

35

32

35

33

38

43

39

32

38

35

38

27

30

32

8

10

8

5

9

8

8

7

6

8

7

9

6

7

9

14

13

3

3

2

3

3

2

1

8

6

3

3

2

2

4

4

7

6

17

14

13

16

16

17

14

27

20

13

22

9

18

22

27

5

7

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2017 Business/Community Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?



62

59*

59*

53

52

49

49

47

46

46

45

45

44

44

State-wide

Household user

Personal user

Interface

Hills

50-64

65+

Women

Southern Rural

Cardinia

Men

35-49

Growth

18-34

63

63

64

57

55

53

51

53

55

52

50

52

49

51

65

54

55

50

52

53

48

53

45

50

46

51

51

47

65

60

59

n/a

56

50

52

51

50

49

48

49

45

48

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?



*Caution: small sample size < n=30


5

8

8

5

16

9

5

11

2

5

6

7

4

4

5

6

6

20

23

20

26

34

27

17

25

27

21

20

17

18

25

23

43

44

34

39

41

35

34

34

34

36

29

33

34

26

33

40

41

34

33

32

22

25

28

12

23

35

20

31

32

31

41

36

18

21

14

14

7

6

6

5

3

6

7

9

7

8

7

7

5

10

9

3

3

2

3

1

1

1

2

4

1

3

2

3

2

1

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern 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?




63

56

53

53

51

50

50

50

50

49*

49

48

48*

48

State-wide

Interface

50-64

Hills

18-34

Men

Growth

Cardinia

Women

Household user

35-49

65+

Personal user

Southern Rural

63

56

49

52

56

53

53

53

52

54

51

52

53

52

63

53

52

54

59

51

55

53

56

63

50

50

62

51

64

n/a

51

54

48

51

51

51

50

58

51

54

56

46

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

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?





2

4

4

2

13

5

2

3

2

3

1

4

1

2

2

11

11

17

20

25

22

34

25

14

18

25

16

17

14

19

21

14

14

16

40

34

33

36

29

38

42

42

30

45

36

50

32

38

37

28

28

14

13

16

15

9

12

15

9

13

13

14

14

18

9

13

20

19

3

5

2

5

3

2

1

3

11

4

2

2

3

4

4

12

12

24

24

20

21

12

18

25

25

19

19

29

17

27

26

31

14

14

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user*

Household user*


2017 Tourism Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?




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.

Gender Age

49%51%

Men

Women

9%

24%

28%

20%

18%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?



2017 Years Lived in Area

15

15

18

23

22

26

27

19

18

22

60

58

63

59

56

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

2015 Cardinia

2014 Cardinia

2013 Cardinia

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

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?



2017 Years Lived in Area

15

15

14

13

16

6

20

17

13

23

12

8

11

26

27

17

28

30

18

20

19

32

31

31

16

18

31

24

24

33

32

26

35

35

27

31

38

30

22

11

16

18

12

12

12

8

10

12

9

9

15

15

17

17

28

15

12

37

18

18

17

7

10

31

34

2017 Cardinia

2016 Cardinia

State-wide

Interface

Growth

Hills

Southern 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?



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 Cardinia Shire Council according to the most recently

available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously

not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating

scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should

be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the

methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2017 have been made

throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin of

error at 95%

confidence interval

Cardinia Shire Council 400 400 +/-4.9

Men 194 196 +/-7.0

Women 206 204 +/-6.8

Growth 236 260 +/-6.4

Hills 95 75 +/-10.1

Southern Rural 69 65 +/-11.9

18-34 years 58 134 +/-13.0

35-49 years 91 114 +/-10.3

50-64 years 134 81 +/-8.5

65+ years 117 71 +/-9.1

The sample size for the 2017 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for

Cardinia Shire Council was n=400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all

reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately n=400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95%

confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an

example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 66,000 people aged

18 years or over for Cardinia Shire Council, according to ABS estimates.


All participating councils are listed in the state-wide report published on the DELWP website. In 2017,

68 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis and

reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use

standard council groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey

provide analysis using these standard council groupings. Please note that councils participating across

2012-2017 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Cardinia Shire Council is classified as a Interface council according to the following classification list:

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

Councils participating in the Interface group are: Cardinia, Casey, Melton, Mornington Peninsula,

Whittlesea and Yarra Ranges.

Wherever appropriate, results for Cardinia Shire Council for this 2017 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other participating councils in the

Interface group and on a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings changed for 2015, and

as such comparisons to council group results before that time can not be made within the reported

charts.


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the

state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t

say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by

the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to

produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT INDEX FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60


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 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’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; or

b) the level of importance placed on a particular service area.

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

INDEX SCORE Performance implication Importance implication

75 – 100Council is performing very well

in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75Council is performing well in this service

area, but there is room for improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performing satisfactorily in

this service area but needs to improve


fairly important

40 – 50Council is performing poorly



somewhat important

0 – 40Council is performing very poorly



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.


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the 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.


Reporting

Every 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 a state-wide

summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council

areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils are reported only to the commissioning council

and not otherwise shared unless by express written approval of the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Report is available at

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

.

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 this

will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

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

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

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the

council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongdan
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Background and objectives - Cardinia Shire Council and objectives ... The main objectives of the...

Documents