Community Research - 2014 - Cessnock City Council 1... · Satisfaction with Level of Communication...

Cessnock City Council

Community Research - 2014

Prepared by: Micromex Research

Date: December 2014

Background &

Methodology

Table of Contents Introduction

Background & Methodology ...................................................................................................... 1

Sample Profile .............................................................................................................................. 3

Cessnock – Quality of Life .......................................................................................................... 4

Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 5

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 8

Summary & Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19

Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living in Cessnock .................................. 20

Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................................20

Community ...........................................................................................................................................21

Economy ...............................................................................................................................................22

Environment ..........................................................................................................................................23

Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................24

Governance .........................................................................................................................................25

Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan ............................................................................. 26

Priority Issues for Residents and Their Families ........................................................................ 27

Priority Issues for Towns and Villages ....................................................................................... 28

Priority Issues for the Cessnock LGA ........................................................................................ 29

Importance of, & Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities ......................................... 30

Community ...........................................................................................................................................32

Economy ...............................................................................................................................................37

Environment ..........................................................................................................................................41

Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................46

Governance .........................................................................................................................................51

Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance .............................................................. 56

Importance of, & Satisfaction with, Council Services & Facilities ......................................... 57

Support for Financial Sustainability from Council ................................................................... 60

Financial Sustainability Initiative .............................................................................................. 61

Satisfaction with Level of Communication .............................................................................. 62

Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 65


Community Research

December 2014 Page | 1

Background & Methodology Cessnock Council sought to examine community attitudes and perceptions towards current and future

services and facilities provided by Council. Key objectives of the research included:

o To assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities,

services and facilities

o To identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance

o To identify the community’s level of satisfaction with regards to contact they have had with Council

staff

o To identify trends and benchmark results against the research conducted previously

o To assess progress against the outcomes in the community strategic plan

To facilitate this, Micromex Research was contracted to develop a survey template that enabled Council

to effectively analyse attitudes and trends within the community.

Questionnaire

Micromex Research, together with Cessnock Council, developed the questionnaire.

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.

Data collection

The survey was conducted during the period 8th – 13th November 2014 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm, Monday to

Friday and from 10am to 4pm Saturday.

Survey area

Cessnock Council Government Area.

Sample selection and error

The sample consisted of a total of 401 residents. The selection of respondents was by means of a computer

based random selection process using the electronic White Pages.

A sample size of 401 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence.

The sample was weighted by age to reflect the 2011 ABS census data.

This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=401 residents, that 19 times out of 20

we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%. Therefore, the research findings documented in this

report should be interpreted by Cessnock Council as not just the opinions of 401 residents, but as an

accurate and robust measure of the entire community’s attitudes.

Interviewing

Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia) Standards

and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct.

Background & Methodology


Community Research


Prequalification

Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as having lived in the Cessnock Council area for a minimum of

six months and not being employed or having an immediate family member employed by Cessnock

Council or a market research company.

Data analysis

The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional. To identify the statistically significant

differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’ were

used. ‘Z Tests’ were also used to determine statistically significant differences between column

percentages.

Ratings questions

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance, satisfaction or agreement and 5 the

highest importance, satisfaction or agreement, was used in all rating questions.

This scale allowed for a mid-range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.

Note: Only respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were asked to rate their

satisfaction with that service/facility.

Percentages

All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly equal

100%.

Errors: Data in this publication is subject to sampling variability because it is based on information relating

to a sample of residents rather than the total number. This difference (sampling error) may occur

due to imperfections in reporting and errors made in processing the data. This may occur in any

enumeration, whether it is a full count or sample.

Efforts have been made to reduce the non-sampling error by careful design of the questionnaire

and detailed checking of completed questionnaires.


Community Research


Sample Profile


Community Research


Sample Profile

Sampling error

A sample size of 401 residents provides a sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence. This means

that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=401 residents, that 19 times out of 20 we would

expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.

Base: n=401

64%

15%

13%

7%

1%

31%

24%

24%

21%

51%

49%

0% 25% 50% 75%

More than 20 years

11 – 20 years

6 – 10 years

3 – 5 years

6 months – 2 years

60 years and over

45 – 59

30 – 44

18 – 29

Female

Male

Gender

Age

Time lived in area

Key Findings

Key Findings


Community Research


Cessnock – Quality of Life

Summary

67% of residents agreed that Cessnock offers a good quality of life. This has remained steady since 2009, and

is similar across the age and gender demographics.

‘The area offers a good quality of life’

2014 2012 2009 18 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 + Male Female

Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

Base: n = 401

2%

6%

25%

45%

22%

0% 25% 50%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Mean rating – 3.78

Key Findings


Community Research


Cessnock 2023 Community Strategic Plan

Summary

In terms of the five desired outcomes of the2023 Community Strategic Plan, only three have a net positive

agreement outcome – Cessnock LGA is ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’, ‘a connected, safe and

creative community’ and it has ‘accessible infrastructure, services and facilities’.

Residents are polarised in terms of Cessnock having ‘a sustainable and prosperous economy’, and they were

more inclined to disagree that there is ‘civic leadership and effective governance’.

There were no significant differences within the demographics.

Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023, how well do

you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?

A sustainable and healthy

environment

A connected, safe and creative

community

Accessible infrastructure, services

and facilities

A sustainable and prosperous

economy

Civic leadership and effective

governance

Mean

ratings

3.36

3.26

3.10

3.01

2.84


-21%

-23%

-23%

-12%

-11%

-13%

-6%

-7%

-4%

-4%

18%

25%

27%

32%

42%

7%

5%

10%

7%

7%

-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%

Disagree Strongly disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Base: n = 401

Key Findings


Community Research


Community Strategic Plan Outcomes – Highest Priorities for the Cessnock LGA

Summary

When asked an open-ended question about the highest priority issue for the LGA, ‘Roads’ was the standout

issue mentioned by residents, with 42% of respondents indicating that they considered it a priority. Whilst this is

down on the 50% of mentions in 2012, it is still a very high result for an open-ended question (it was also a

dominant issue on other open-ended questions about priority issues for ‘you and your family’[21% of

mentions] and ‘your town or village’ [34% of mentions]).

Q2d. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the Cessnock City Council area?

5%

5%

5%

8%

17%

42%

0% 25% 50%

Effectively planning and

managing development

Encouraging growth in the

local economy

Access to and quality of

health services

Public safety and crime

reduction

Expanding employment

opportunities

Local road network -

Improve/upgrade/maintain

Base: n = 401


Community Research


Key Findings Overview (Overall satisfaction)

Summary

80% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance. This is the same result

as our NSW Regional Benchmark, and similar to the All of NSW Benchmark. More importantly, this represents a

significant increase from the 2012 Cessnock result of 2.43 – and is a return to the 2009 level.

Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two

issues but across all responsibility areas?

18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27

Overall

2014

Overall

2012

Overall

2009

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22▲ 2.43 3.23

NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW

Cessnock

City

Council

2014

Mean ratings 3.45 3.22 3.31 3.22

Scale: 1= not at all satisfied, 5= very satisfied

▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of satisfaction (by group)

Base: n= 401

6%

14%

39%

35%

6%

0% 20% 40%

Not at all satisfied

Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Key Findings


Community Research


Comparison to LGA Benchmarks

Cessnock Council residents are more satisfied than the LGA Benchmark score for 3 of the 23 comparable

measures, 3 were equal, and 17 below the Benchmark.

Service/Facility

Cessnock

Council

Satisfaction

Scores

Satisfaction

Benchmark

Above the Benchmark

Library services 4.2 4.1

Performing Arts Centre 4.2 3.8

Presentation of the CBD main streets 3.4 3.3

Equal to the Benchmark

Sporting fields and buildings 3.7 3.7

Heritage conservation 3.5 3.5

Flood prevention 3.3 3.3

Below the Benchmark

Waste collection and disposal 3.8 4.1

Recycling and waste reduction 3.7 3.9

Maintaining open space and bushland 3.5 3.6

Swimming pools 3.5 3.7

Buildings for community activities and meetings 3.4 3.6

Parks and recreation areas 3.3 3.7

Environmental protection 3.2 3.4

Stormwater drainage 3.2 3.3

Encouraging business and industry 3.1 3.2

Facilities and services for youth 3.0 3.1

Information supplied to residents about Council activities 3.0 3.3

Long term planning and vision 3.0 3.1

Community involvement in Council decision making 2.9 3.0

Cycleways 2.8 3.2

Public toilets 2.8 3.1

Footpaths 2.5 3.0

Developing and maintaining the road network 2.1 2.8

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Key Findings


Community Research


Key Importance Trends

Compared to the previous research conducted in 2012, there was a significant increase in residents’ levels

of importance with 2 of the 32 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:

Community services and facilities planning (3.89 cf. 3.64)

Parks and recreation areas (4.85 cf. 4.41)

Key Satisfaction Trends

Compared to the previous research conducted in 2012, there was a significant increase in residents’ levels

of satisfaction with 14 of the 32 services and facilities provided by Council, these were:

Cemetery management (3.62 cf. 3.45)

Community involvement in Council decision making (2.87 cf. 2.69)

Community services and facilities planning (3.29 cf. 3.03)

Council’s response to community needs (2.80 cf. 2.60)

Cycleways (2.81 cf. 2.49)

Developing and maintaining the road network (2.14 cf. 1.62)

Flood prevention (3.26 cf. 2.82)

Long term planning and vision (2.96 cf. 2.77)

Noxious weed control (3.17 cf. 2.95)

Presentation of the CBD main streets (3.42 cf. 3.25)

Regulating traffic flow (2.96 cf. 2.59)

Sporting fields and buildings (3.67 cf. 3.42)

Stormwater drainage (3.17 cf. 2.80)

The way Council employees deal with the public (3.27 cf. 3.02)

Encouragingly, these attributes cover a range of services/facilities, from tangible service delivery areas (eg:

roads, traffic flow, cycle-ways, drainage and weed control) to the more attitudinal/cultural aspects (eg:

community involvement in Council decision making, Council responsiveness to community needs, and the

way Council employees deal with the public).

Key Findings


Community Research


Identifying Priorities via Specialised Analysis (Explanation)

The specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community

satisfaction with a range of specific service delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook a

2 step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfaction data, after which we conducted a

third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify which

facilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.

By examining both approaches to analysis we have been able to:

1. Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities

2. Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations

Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)

PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the mean

satisfaction score from the mean importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents

are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of a range of different services or

facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or

satisfaction. These scores are aggregated at a total community level.

The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the

provision of that service by Cessnock Council and the expectation of the community for that

service/facility.

In the table on the following page, we can see the 32 services and facilities that residents rated by

importance and then by satisfaction.

When analysing the performance gaps, it is important to recognise that, for the most part, a gap of up to

1.0 is acceptable when the initial importance rating is 4.0+, as it indicates that residents consider the

attribute to be of ‘high’ to ‘very high’ importance and that the satisfaction they have with Cessnock

Council performance on that same measure, is ‘moderate’ to ‘moderately high’.

For example, ‘maintaining open space and bushland’ was given an importance score of 4.37, which

indicates that it is considered an area of ‘very high’ importance by residents. At the same time it was given

a satisfaction score of 3.46, which indicates that residents are ‘moderately satisfied’ with Cessnock

Council’s performance and focus on that measure.

In the case of a performance gap such as for the ‘Performing Arts Centre’ (3.77 importance vs. 4.23

satisfaction), we can identify that the facility/service has only ‘moderately high’ importance to the broader

community, but for residents who feel that this facility is important, it is providing a ‘very high’ level of

satisfaction.

Key Findings


Community Research


When analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the

absolute size of the performance gap.

Performance Gap Ranking

Ranking

2012

Ranking

2014 Service/Facility

Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

1 1 Developing and maintaining the road network 4.71 2.14 2.57

6 2 Kerb and guttering 4.17 2.41 1.76

5 3 Footpaths 4.18 2.49 1.69

4 4 Council’s response to community needs 4.46 2.80 1.66

19 5▲ Parks and recreation areas 4.85 3.26 1.59

3 6 Regulating traffic flow 4.45 2.96 1.49

8 7 Long term planning and vision 4.43 2.96 1.47

9 8

Community involvement in Council decision making 4.33 2.87 1.46

7 Public toilets 4.21 2.75 1.46

15 10 Encouraging business and industry 4.40 3.07 1.33

12 11 Information supplied to residents about Council activities 4.30 3.01 1.29

10 12 Stormwater drainage 4.36 3.17 1.19

16 13 Managing residential development 4.24 3.07 1.17

13 14 The way Council employees deal with the public 4.38 3.27 1.11

11 15

Flood prevention 4.36 3.26 1.10

18 Environmental protection 4.34 3.24 1.10

14 17 Cycleways 3.86 2.81 1.05

17 18 Noxious weed control 4.16 3.17 0.99

21 19 Facilities and services for youth 3.94 2.96 0.98

20 20 Maintaining open space and bushland 4.37 3.46 0.91

22 21

Recycling and waste reduction 4.53 3.72 0.81

23 Waste collection and disposal 4.57 3.76 0.81

24 23 Presentation of the CBD main streets 4.15 3.42 0.73

26 24 Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and

takeaway shops 4.34 3.63 0.71

29 25 Swimming pools 4.17 3.50 0.67

27 26 Heritage conservation 4.13 3.47 0.66

25 27

Sporting fields and buildings 4.27 3.67 0.60

30 Community services and facilities planning 3.89 3.29 0.60

28 29 Cemetery management 4.15 3.62 0.53

31 30 Buildings for community activities and meetings 3.66 3.37 0.29

32 31 Library services 3.92 4.24 -0.32

33 32 Performing Arts Centre 3.77 4.23 -0.46

Scale: 1=not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5=very important/very satisfied

▲Significantly larger gap than 2012

Key Findings


Community Research


When we examine the 11 largest performance gaps, we can identify that all the services or facilities have

been rated as ‘high’ to ‘extremely high’ in importance. Resident satisfaction for all of these areas is

between 2.14 and 3.26, which indicates that resident satisfaction for these measures is ‘moderately low’ to

‘moderate’.

Ranking Service/ Facility Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

Performance

Gap

1 Developing and maintaining the road network 4.71 2.14 2.57

2 Kerb and guttering 4.17 2.41 1.76

3 Footpaths 4.18 2.49 1.69

4 Council’s response to community needs 4.46 2.80 1.66

5 Parks and recreation areas 4.85 3.26 1.59

6 Regulating traffic flow 4.45 2.96 1.49

7 Long term planning and vision 4.43 2.96 1.47

8 Community involvement in Council decision making 4.33 2.87 1.46

9 Public toilets 4.21 2.75 1.46

10 Encouraging business and industry 4.40 3.07 1.33

11 Information supplied to residents about Council activities 4.30 3.01 1.29

The key outcomes of this analysis would suggest that, while there are opportunities to improve satisfaction

across a range of services/facilities, ‘developing and maintaining the road network’ and the related issues

of ‘Kerb and guttering’ and ‘Footpaths’ are the areas of least relative satisfaction.

Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across

all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level.

This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.

Key Findings


Community Research


Quadrant Analysis

Step 2. Quadrant Analysis

Quadrant analysis is a useful tool for planning future directions. It combines the stated needs of the

community and assesses Cessnock Council’s performance in relation to these needs.

This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and

rated satisfaction. We aggregate the mean scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify

where the facility or service should be plotted. For these criteria, the average stated importance score was

4.25 and the average rated satisfaction score was 3.22. Therefore, any facility or service that received a

mean stated importance score of ≥ 4.25 would be plotted in the higher importance section and,

conversely, any that scored < 4.25 would be plotted into the lower importance section. The same exercise is

undertaken with the satisfaction ratings above, equal to or below 3.22. Each service or facility is then

plotted in terms of satisfaction and importance, resulting in its placement in one of four quadrants.

Quadrant Analysis – Importance v Satisfaction

ImproveHigher importance, lower satisfaction

MaintainHigher importance, higher satisfaction

Imp

ort

an

ce

NicheLower importance, lower satisfaction

SatisfactionCommunity

Lower importance, higher satisfaction

Cycleways

Facilities and services for youth

Footpaths

Kerb and guttering

Managing residential development

Noxious weed control

Public toilets

Environmental protectionFlood prevention

Inspection of the health and hygiene

of local restaurants and takeaway

shops

Maintaining open

space and bushland

Parks and recreation areas

Recycling and waste reduction

Sporting fields and buildings

The way Council employees

deal with the public

Waste collection and disposal

Community involvement in Council

decision making

Council’s response to

community needs

Developing and maintaining the road

network

Encouraging business

and industry

Information supplied to residents

about Council activities

Long term planning and vision

Regulating traffic flow

Stormwater drainage

Buildings for community activities and

meetings

Cemetery management

Community services and facilities

planning

Heritage conservation

Library services

Performing Arts Centre

Presentation of the CBD main streets

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3

Key Findings


Community Research


Explaining the 4 quadrants

Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘parks and recreation areas’, are Council’s core

strengths, and should be treated as such. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas,

as they are influential and address clear community needs.

Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘developing and maintaining the road network’, are

areas where Council is perceived to be currently under-performing and are key concerns in the eyes of

your residents. In the vast majority of cases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to

better meet the community’s expectations.

Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘kerb and guttering’, are of a relatively lower priority

(and the word ‘relatively’ should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to

a particular segment of the community.

Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY, such as ‘presentation of the CBD main streets’,

are core strengths, but in relative terms they are less important than other areas and Council’s servicing in

these areas may already be exceeding expectation. Consideration could be given to rationalising focus in

these areas as they are not community priorities for improvement.

Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual

questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’ facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when

they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of Council performance.

Residents’ priorities identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be in areas that are

problematic. No matter how much focus a Council dedicates to the ‘developing and maintaining the road

network’, it will often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition of

local roads can always be better.

Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of

the community, they do not predict which focus areas are the most likely agents to change the

community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.

Therefore, in order to identify how Cessnock Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction, we

conducted further analysis.

The Shapley Value Regression

We recently finalised the development of a Council Satisfaction Model, to identify priorities that will drive

overall satisfaction with Council.

This model was developed by conducting specialised analysis from over 30,000 LGA interviews conducted

since 2005. In essence, it proved that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities they stated

as being important does not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction with the Council. This

regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and

explanatory variables.

In 2014, we revised the Shapley regression analysis to identify the directional contribution of key services

and facilities with regard to satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Council’s overall performance.

What Does This Mean?

The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the

appropriate resources to the actual service attributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using

regression analysis we can identify the attributes that essentially build overall satisfaction. We call the

outcomes ‘derived importance’.

Key Findings


Community Research


Key Drivers of Satisfaction with Cessnock Council

The results in the chart below provide Cessnock Council with a complete picture of both the extrinsic and

intrinsic community priorities and motivations and identify what attributes are the key drivers of community

satisfaction.

These top 12 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that

the remaining 20 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s

satisfaction with Cessnock Council performance. Therefore, whilst all 32 service/facility areas are important,

only a minority of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.

These 12 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Cessnock Council will

improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of

influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.

Three broad areas emerge in the above data:

Community engagement: ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’ (8.1%), ‘Council’s

response to community needs’ (7.8%), ‘The way Council employees deal with the public’ (5.1%),

and ‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ (4.9%).

Planning: ‘Long term planning and vision’ (9.8%) and ‘Managing residential development’ (2.9%)

Roads: ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ (5.3%), ‘Kerb and guttering’ (3%).

2.9%

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.7%

4.9%

5.1%

5.3%

7.8%

8.1%

9.8%

0% 5% 10%


Kerb and guttering


Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants

and takeaway shops


Cemetery management

Information supplied to residents about Council activities

The way Council employees deal with the public

Developing and maintaining the road network

Council’s response to community needs

Community involvement in Council decision making


Key Findings


Community Research


Clarifying Priorities

By mapping satisfaction against derived importance we can see for some of the core drivers, Council is

already providing ‘moderately high’ or greater levels of satisfaction, i.e. ‘waste collection and disposal’,

‘inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops’ and ‘cemetery

management’. Council should look to maintain/consolidate their delivery in these areas.

It is also apparent that there is room to elevate satisfaction within the variables that fall in the ‘lower’ and

‘moderate satisfactions’ regions of the chart. If Cessnock Council can address these core drivers, they will

be able to improve resident satisfaction with their performance.

Inspection of the health

and hygiene of local

restaurants and

takeaway shopsPresentation of the CBD

main streets

Managing residential

development

Cemetery management

Developing and

maintaining the road

network

Kerb and guttering

Waste collection and

disposal


community needs

The way Council

employees deal with the

public

Community involvement

in Council decision

making

Information supplied to

residents about Council

activities

Long term planning and

vision

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

2.8% 3.8% 4.8% 5.8% 6.8% 7.8% 8.8% 9.8%

Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived

Importance Identifies the Community

Priority Areas

Sta

ted

Sa

tisf

ac

tio

n

Derived Importance

Moderately High

Satisfaction ≥ 3.60

Moderate Satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59

Low Satisfaction

≤ 2.99

The above analysis reinforces the findings of the previous page – namely, that the three areas of

‘Community engagement’, ‘Planning’ and ‘Roads’ could be targeted for optimisation. Council should be

looking to either align their delivery with resident expectations or more actively inform/engage residents of

Council’s position and advocacy on these matters.

Key Findings


Community Research


Advanced Shapley Outcomes

The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall

satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion

of the residents.

The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding the transition towards

satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will

positively transition residents who are currently ‘not at all satisfied’ towards being at least ‘somewhat

satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance.

The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If we

can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively

transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat satisfied’ towards being more satisfied with

Council’s overall performance.

Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers

Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community

-6.0%

-5.2%

-4.7%

-4.7%

-3.5%

-1.5%

-1.7%

-0.5%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.4%

-1.9%

3.8%

2.9%

3.1%

0.6%

1.6%

3.4%

2.1%

3.2%

0.4%

1.2%

1.6%

0.9%

-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%







Cemetery management


Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway

shops


Kerb and guttering


Optimisers

(25%)

Barriers

(36%)

An attribute such as ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ has the ability to cause overall

dissatisfaction with Council, but is less likely to drive overall satisfaction. In contrast, an attribute such as

‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ won’t necessarily generate overall dissatisfaction

with Council, but it is capable of driving satisfaction with Council. And an attribute such as ‘Kerb and

guttering’ can drive both overall satisfaction and overall dissatisfaction with Council.

Summary &

Recommendations


Community Research


Summary & Recommendations Summary:

Results of the 2014 Community Survey are generally very favourable for Cessnock City Council:

Overall rating of the quality of life that the region offers remains positive, and in line with 2012 and

2009 results

In terms of the five strategic plan pillars, ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’, ‘a connected,

safe and creative community’, and ‘accessible infrastructure, services and facilities’ have a net

positive agreement rating, however, residents are polarised in terms of ‘sustainable and prosperous

economy’, and they were more inclined to disagree with ‘civic leadership and effective

governance’

Overall satisfaction with the performance of Council has bounced back from the poor result in 2012,

and is back in line with the 2009 results

Compared to 2012, there have been significant increases in resident satisfaction for 14 of the 32

surveyed attributes – and these attributes cover a range of services/facilities, from tangible service

delivery areas (e.g. roads, traffic flow, cycleways, drainage, weed control, etc.) to the more

attitudinal/cultural aspects (e.g. community involvement in Council decision making, Council

responsiveness to community needs, and the way Council employees deal with the public)

However, there are several areas for improvement:

The condition of the local roads (and related issues of kerb and guttering and footpaths) is a key

concern for residents. On a range of measures, including unaided and aided questions and our

Shapley regression analysis, roads were considered to be a problem (albeit their ratings are better

than they were in 2012)

The way Council engages with the community is another area for improvement – ‘Council’s

response to community needs’, ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’, ‘Information

supplied to residents about Council activities’. Whilst some respondents were able to articulate

these engagement issues, they emerged as a key driver of overall satisfaction with Council on our

Shapley regression analysis, which can uncover underlying drivers that some respondents may not

be able to articulate

Long-term planning – again, this was an area that featured in some of the questionnaire responses,

but was more pronounced in the Shapley regression analysis

Recommendations:

Based on the research outcomes, Council should consider the following:

1. Continue to focus on opportunities that will inform and include residents in decision-making and

long-term planning for the LGA

Following on from the above, given the importance Cessnock residents place on community

engagement and information provision, Council should consider undertaking some

community workshops to better understand what community expectations are in terms of

engagement

Similarly, the community workshops could be used to explore resident expectations of

Council’s role in long-term planning for the LGA

2. Focus on maintaining local roads and footpaths. Whilst it could be argued that some residents will

never be satisfied with the state of the local roads (i.e. there may always be some dissatisfaction),

having a visible presence in road repairs and communicating successful outcomes would be

appreciated by the community

3. Be mindful that the community remains concerned about Council’s civic leadership/governance,

so communicate governance success stories

Section A The Cessnock City Council

Area as a Place to Live


Community Research


Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding Living

in Cessnock

Quality of Life

Summary

67% of residents agreed that Cessnock offers a good quality of life. This has remained steady since 2009,

and is similar across the age and gender demographics.

‘The area offers a good quality of life’

2014 2012 2009 18 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 + Male Female

Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71


Base: n = 401

2%

6%

25%

45%

22%

0% 25% 50%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree



in Cessnock


Community Research


Community Summary

49% of residents ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ that ‘there is a strong community spirit in the Cessnock area’

and 54% agree to strongly agree that ‘if there was a problem in my community, people would band

together to solve it’.

There were high levels of disagreement with ‘facilities and services for youth are adequate’ (46%) and

‘facilities and services for children are adequate’ (36%).

Residents aged 18-29 were more likely to agree that the ‘facilities and services for the aged are adequate’

than were those aged 30+.

Residents aged 30-44 were least likely to agree that ‘facilities and services for children are adequate’.

‘Facilities and services for youth are adequate’ and ‘quality housing is both available and affordable’ have

increased significantly since 2012.

Q. In this section we would like your views on the Cessnock City Council Area as a place to live. Our desire is to gauge your views

on the broader attributes of the Cessnock community, although many of these issues are not the responsibility of Council.

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

There is a strong community

spirit in the Cessnock area

If there was a problem in my

community, people would

band together to solve it

Arts, entertainment and culture

are well catered for

It is a safe place to live

Quality housing is both

available and affordable

Facilities and services for the

aged are adequate

Facilities and services for

children are adequate


are adequate

Mean ratings

2014 2012

3.53 3.39

3.52 3.40

3.28 3.39

3.26 3.12

3.21▲ 2.88

3.00 2.93

2.86 2.85

2.59▲ 2.27


▲▼ = significantly higher/lower than in 2012

-27%

-24%

-19%

-13%

-17%

-16%

-15%

-8%

-19%

-12%

-10%

-7%

-6%

-7%

-5%

-5%

14%

21%

24%

30%

31%

26%

33%

27%

5%

7%

8%

9%

12%

16%

21%

22%

-60% -30% 0% 30% 60%



Base: n = 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Economy Summary

89% of residents agree to strongly agree that ‘the vineyards play an important role in the local economy’,

84% that ‘conferences and events are important for the area’, and 75% that ‘tourism is promoted well’.

There were very high levels of disagreement with the statements ‘there are enough employment

opportunities’ (71%), and ‘industry and business development is working well’ (39%), and with ‘education

and training opportunities are good’ (33%).


Since 2012, ‘there are enough employment opportunities’ has experienced a significant reduction in

residents’ estimation, recording 71% disagreement.

The vineyards play an

important role in the

local economy

Conferences and events

are important for the

area

Tourism is promoted well

High quality and

environmentally

friendly industries are

encouraged

Education and training

opportunities are

good

Industry and business

development is

working well

There are enough

employment

opportunities

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.45 4.49

4.28 4.25

3.99 3.93

3.11 3.08

2.98 3.02

2.83 2.79

2.16▼ 2.40



-44%

-27%

-23%

-11%

-7%

-4%

-4%

-27%

-12%

-10%

-11%

-3%

-1%

7%

21%

25%

29%

39%

36%

27%

3%

6%

8%

8%

36%

48%

62%

-90% -60% -30% 0% 30% 60% 90%



Base: n = 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Environment

Summary

The majority of residents agreed to strongly agreed that ‘the bushland that supports a diversity of native

plants and animals is valuable’ (76%), ‘waste collection and disposal are well managed’ (62%), ‘the area’s

heritage is well conserved’ (59%), and ‘the area has an attractive appearance’ (54%).

There were high levels of disagreement with the statements ‘development overall is well planned and well

managed’ (37%), ‘residential development is well managed’ (33%), and ‘there is a wide range of

recreation and leisure opportunities’ (33%).


‘The area has an attractive appearance’, ‘the natural environment is well managed’ and ‘residential

development is well managed’ have increased in residents’ agreement since 2012.

The bushland that supports a

diversity of native plants

and animals is valuable


are well managed

The area’s heritage is well

conserved

The area has an attractive

appearance

There are enough good

quality open spaces

The natural environment is

well managed

Environmental issues are

handled well

There is a wide range of

recreation and leisure

opportunities

Residential development is

well managed

Development overall is well

planned and well

managed

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.11 4.19

3.64 3.61

3.61 3.62

3.50▲ 3.23

3.34 3.21

3.26▲ 3.06

3.03 2.89

2.98 3.10

2.94▲ 2.76

2.85 2.71



-15%

-12%

-11%

-7%

-8%

-6%

-5%

-3%

-6%

-2%

-22%

-21%

-22%

-19%

-12%

-19%

-9%

-7%

-10%

20%

21%

25%

20%

30%

30%

37%

43%

38%

34%

8%

9%

8%

9%

11%

17%

17%

16%

24%

42%

-80% -40% 0% 40% 80%



Base: n = 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Infrastructure

Summary

Residents indicated there is a need for improving the infrastructure in the Cessnock LGA, particularly for

health facilities.


Whilst still rated with high levels of disagreement, ‘the road network is effective and in good repair’ and

‘health facilities are sufficient’ have improved significantly since 2012.

Health facilities are sufficient

There is enough public transport

The road network is effective

and in good repair

Mean ratings

2014 2012

2.80▲ 2.64

2.71 2.59

1.91▲ 1.45



-34%

-23%

-26%

-43%

-23%

-14%

4%

17%

23%

3%

12%

6%

-80% -40% 0% 40% 80%



Base: n = 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Governance

46% of residents agree to strongly agree that ‘people volunteer and get involved in their community’ (46%),

‘laws and regulations are enforced consistently and fairly’ (42%), and ‘the opportunity exists for me to be

involved in making decisions about my community’ (38%).

There were strong levels of disagreement with the statements ‘there is good co-operation between all

levels of government in the area’ (39%) and ‘there is a clear plan and direction for the future’ (31%).

With the exception of ‘the opportunity exists for me to be involved in making decisions about my

community’, agreement with all of these statements has significantly increased since 2012.

People volunteer and get

involved in their community

Laws and regulations are

enforced consistently and

fairly

The opportunity exists for me to

be involved in making

decisions about my

community

There is a clear plan and

direction for the future

There is good co-operation

between all levels of

government in the area

Mean ratings

2014 2012

3.48▲ 3.29

3.26▲ 2.96

3.15 3.04

2.86▲ 2.50

2.74▲ 2.41



-23%

-19%

-18%

-16%

-9%

-16%

-12%

-7%

-5%

-1%

21%

18%

28%

31%

34%

4%

6%

10%

11%

12%

-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%



Base: n = 401

Section B Priority Issues within the

Cessnock LGA


Community Research



Summary

49% of residents agree to strongly agree that the Cessnock LGA is ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’,

39% that it is ‘a connected, safe and creative community’ and 37% that it has ‘accessible infrastructure,

services and facilities’.


Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023, how well do

you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?


environment


community

Accessible infrastructure, services

and facilities


economy


governance

Mean

ratings

3.36

3.26

3.10

3.01

2.84


-21%

-23%

-23%

-12%

-11%

-13%

-6%

-7%

-4%

-4%

18%

25%

27%

32%

42%

7%

5%

10%

7%

7%

-50% -25% 0% 25% 50%



Base: n = 401


Community Research


Priority Issues for Residents and Their Families

Summary

Roads and employment were the 2 priority issues for residents and their families.

Q2b. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue for you and your family?

7%

9%

11%

19%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Providing services and activities for families

Public safety and crime reduction

Access to and quality of health services

Expanding employment opportunities



Base: n = 401


Community Research


Priority Issues for Towns and Villages

Summary

The predominant issue identified by residents for the towns and villages was roads.

Q2c. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the town or village where you live?

5%

6%

7%

10%

15%

34%

0% 20% 40%

Effectively planning and managing

development

Encouraging growth in the local

economy

Providing services and activities for

children/young people

Public safety and crime reduction


opportunities



Base: n = 401


Community Research


Priority Issues for the Cessnock LGA

Summary

‘Roads’ was the standout issue recognised for the LGA, with almost half of the residents indicating that they

considered it a priority.


5%

5%

5%

8%

17%

42%

0% 25% 50%

Effectively planning and

managing development

Encouraging growth in the

local economy

Access to and quality of

health services

Public safety and crime

reduction


opportunities



Base: n = 401

Section C Detailed Findings Importance/Satisfaction – Council Services and Facilities


Community Research


Importance of, & Satisfaction with,

Council Services & Facilities

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest importance

or satisfaction, was used in all rating questions.

Interpreting the Mean Scores

Within the report, the mean ratings for each of the criteria have been assigned a determined level of

‘importance’ or ‘satisfaction’. This determination is based on the following groupings:

Mean rating:

1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction

2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ levels of importance/satisfaction

3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction

3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction

4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction

Participants were asked to indicate which best described their opinion of the importance of the following

services/facilities to them. Respondents who rated services/facilities a 4 or 5 in importance were then asked

to rate their satisfaction with that service/facility.

We Explored Resident Response To32 Service Areas

Community

Community services and facilities planning

Buildings for community activities and meetings

Faciliites and services for youth

Library services

Public toilets

Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops


Economy


Encouraging business and industry

Environment


Heriatge conservation

Environmental protection


Maintaining open space and bushland



Swimming pools

Cemetery management



Infrastructure



Footpaths

Cycleways

Kerb and guttering

Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention

Governance



Council's response to community needs






Community Research


Key Service Areas’ Contribution to Overall Satisfaction

By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different

Nett Priority Areas.

Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

5.8%

14.0%

18.9%

25.5%

35.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0%

Nett - Economy

Nett - Community

Nett - Infrastructure

Nett - Environment

Nett - Governance




Community Research


Community

Services and facilities explored included:




Public toilets


Library services


Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council (Regression Data)

Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for 14% of overall satisfaction, based on the regression

analysis.

Community – Contributes to 14% of Overall Satisfaction with

Council

1.0%

1.1%

1.5%

1.9%

2.5%

2.6%

3.4%

14.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0%


Public toilets

Library services

Buildings for community activities

and meetings


planning




shops

Nett - Community




Community Research


Community

Note: The hierarchal sorting of each graph is relative to the criteria’s importance mean ratings.

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.34 4.26

4.21 4.21

3.94 3.82

3.92 3.84

3.89▲ 3.64

3.77 3.72

3.66 3.52

Mean ratings

2014 2012

3.63 3.53

2.75 2.58

2.96 2.82

4.24 4.20

3.29▲ 3.03

4.23 4.19

3.37 3.28


▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by year)

22%

36%

30%

37%

38%

54%

54%

38%

30%

38%

33%

34%

23%

30%

28%

15%

23%

20%

17%

15%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


meetings



planning

Library services


Public toilets

Inspection of the health and hygiene of

local restaurants and takeaway shops

Importance

Very important Important Somewhat important

Base: n = 401

10%

45%

13%

41%

9%

7%

18%

38%

39%

25%

45%

24%

18%

39%

33%

10%

43%

13%

34%

35%

34%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


meetings



planning

Library services


Public toilets

Inspection of the health and hygiene of

local restaurants and takeaway shops

Satisfaction

Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied

Base: n = 239-341




Community Research


Community

Performance Gap Year on year

shift 2014 2012

Public toilets 1.46 1.63 +0.17

Facilities and services for youth 0.98 0.99 +0.01


and takeaway shops 0.71 0.76 +0.05

Community services and facilities planning 0.60 0.58 -0.02

Buildings for community activities and meetings 0.29 0.23 -0.06

Library services -0.32 -0.34 -0.02

Performing Arts Centre -0.46 -0.5 -0.04

▼▲ = negative/positive shift greater than 0.2 from 2012

Overview of Rating Scores

Importance – overall

Very high Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops

High Public toilets


Library services

Moderately high Community services and facilities planning



Importance – by age

Residents aged 60+ rated the importance of ‘library services’ significantly higher than did all other age

groups.

Importance – by gender

Females rated the importance of the ‘Performing Arts Centre’ and ‘public toilets’ significantly higher.

Importance – compared to 2012

Compared to the result from 2012, residents consider the importance of ‘community services and facilities

planning’ to be significantly higher.




Community Research


Community


Satisfaction – overall

Very high Library services


Moderately high Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops

Moderate Buildings for community activities and meetings


Moderately low Facilities and services for youth

Public toilets

Satisfaction – by age

Residents aged 60+ were more satisfied with the provision of ‘library services’ than were all other age groups.

Residents aged 30-44 were less satisfied with ‘public toilets’ than were all other age groups.

Satisfaction – by gender

There were no significant differences between the genders.

Satisfaction – compared to 2012

There has been a significant increase in satisfaction with ‘community services and facilities planning’

compared to the result from 2012.




Community Research


Community

Quadrant Analysis

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOW

ER

SA

TISFA

CTI

ON

HIG

HER

SA

TISFA

CTIO

N

Nil

IMPROVE

Public toiletsFacilities and services for youth

NICHE

Community services and facilities planningBuildings for community activities and meetings

Library servicesPerforming Arts Centre

COMMUNITY


MAINTAIN

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:





Community Research


Economy





Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for almost 6% of overall satisfaction, based on the

regression analysis.

Economy – Contributes To Almost 6%

Of Overall Satisfaction With Council

2.7%

3.2%

5.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0%



Nett - Economy




Community Research


Economy


Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.40 4.32

4.15 4.08

Mean ratings

2014 2012

3.07 3.02

3.42▲ 3.25



44%

60%

36%

25%

13%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Importance


Base: n = 401

14%

9%

36%

24%

32%

39%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Satisfaction


Base: n = 327-347




Community Research


Economy


shift 2014 2012

Encouraging business and industry 1.34 1.30 -0.04

Presentation of the CBD main streets 0.72 0.87 +0.15




Very high Encouraging business and industry

High Presentation of the CBD main streets


There were no significant differences between the ages.


Females rated the importance of ‘presentation of the CBD main streets significantly higher.


There were no significant differences compared to 2012.


Moderate Presentation of the CBD main streets











Community Research


Economy

Quadrant Analysis

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOW

ER

SA

TISFA

CTI

ON

HIG

HER

SA

TISFA

CTIO

N


IMPROVE

Nil

NICHE

Presentation of the CBD mainstreets

COMMUNITY

Nil

MAINTAIN

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to improve resident satisfaction with:





Community Research


Environment









Swimming pools


Cemetery management



Council’s performance in the areas below accounts for over 25% of overall satisfaction, based on the


Environment – Contributes Over 25%

of Overall Satisfaction with Council

1.1%

1.4%

1.4%

2.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.6%

2.7%

2.9%

3.6%

3.7%

25.5%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0%


Swimming pools









Cemetery management

Nett - Environment




Community Research


Environment


Importance

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.85▲ 4.41

4.57 4.57

4.53 4.58

4.37 4.36

4.34 4.32

4.27 4.27

4.24 4.20

4.17 4.12

4.16 4.18

4.15 4.14

4.13 4.04

Satisfaction

Mean ratings

2014 2012

3.26 3.27

3.76 3.68

3.72 3.65

3.46 3.37

3.24 3.16

3.67▲ 3.42

3.07 2.94

3.50 3.51

3.17▲ 2.95

3.62▲ 3.45

3.47 3.36



44%

49%

50%

51%

48%

51%

56%

57%

64%

67%

58%

32%

29%

26%

27%

34%

31%

24%

28%

27%

26%

30%

18%

15%

15%

13%

14%

13%

18%

11%

6%

6%

9%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Cemetery management


Swimming pools









Base: n = 401

13%

22%

11%

23%

10%

21%

12%

20%

29%

30%

15%

38%

39%

28%

33%

25%

37%

31%

30%

36%

36%

28%

36%

23%

38%

22%

37%

31%

35%

30%

19%

18%

32%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Cemetery management


Swimming pools









Base: n = 303-379




Community Research


Environment


shift 2014 2012

Parks and recreation areas 1.59 1.12 -0.47▼

Managing residential development 1.17 1.29 +0.12

Environmental protection 1.10 1.15 +0.05

Noxious weed control 0.99 1.18 +0.19

Maintaining open space and bushland 0.91 1.02 +0.11

Waste collection and disposal 0.81 0.90 +0.09

Recycling and waste reduction 0.81 0.92 +0.11

Swimming pools 0.67 0.64 -0.03

Heritage conservation 0.66 0.67 +0.01

Sporting fields and buildings 0.60 0.85 +0.25▲

Cemetery management 0.53 0.65 +0.12




Extremely high Parks and recreation areas



Very high Maintaining open space and bushland




High Swimming pools


Cemetery management





Females rated the importance of ‘environmental protection’, ‘cemetery management’ and ‘recycling and

waste reduction’ higher than did males.


Residents rated the importance of ‘parks and recreation areas’ higher than they did in 2012.




Community Research


Environment


Moderately high Waste collection and disposal



Cemetery management

Moderate Swimming pools












Resident satisfaction with ‘sporting fields and buildings’, ‘cemetery management’ and ‘noxious weed

control’ has increased since 2012.




Community Research


Environment

Quadrant Analysis

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOW

ER

SA

TISFA

CTI

ON

HIG

HER

SA

TISFA

CTIO

N

Nil

IMPROVE

Managing residential developmentNoxious weed control

NICHE

Swimming poolsHeritage conservation

Cemetery management

COMMUNITY

Parks and recreation areasEnvironmental protection

Maintaining open space and bushlandRecycling and waste reductionWaste collection and disposalSporting fields and buildings

MAINTAIN

Recommendations

Based on the stated outcomes analysis, Cessnock Council needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:










Community Research


Infrastructure



Kerb and guttering

Footpaths


Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention

Cycleways




Infrastructure – Contributes To Almost 19%

Of Overall Satisfaction With Council

1.1%

2.1%

2.2%

2.4%

2.7%

3.0%

5.3%

18.9%

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cycleways

Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention


Footpaths

Kerb and guttering


Nett - Infrastructure




Community Research


Infrastructure


Importance

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.71 4.78

4.45 4.43

4.36 4.35

4.36 4.33

4.18 4.16

4.17 4.06

3.86 3.84

Satisfaction

Mean ratings

2014 2012

2.14▲ 1.62

2.96▲ 2.59

3.26▲ 2.82

3.17▲ 2.80

2.49 2.48

2.41 2.39

2.81▲ 2.49



41%

55%

54%

56%

57%

59%

82%

27%

21%

24%

28%

27%

29%

13%

17%

15%

13%

13%

12%

9%

2%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Cycleways

Kerb and guttering

Footpaths

Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention



network


Base: n = 401

9%

7%

8%

13%

13%

11%

6%

21%

16%

15%

32%

36%

21%

8%

28%

24%

22%

29%

27%

35%

19%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Cycleways

Kerb and guttering

Footpaths

Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention



network


Base: n = 282-380




Community Research


Infrastructure


shift 2014 2012

Developing and maintaining the road network 2.57 3.16 +0.59▲

Kerb and guttering 1.76 1.67 -0.09

Footpaths 1.69 1.68 -0.01

Regulating traffic flow 1.49 1.84 +0.35▲

Stormwater drainage 1.19 1.50 +0.31▲

Flood prevention 1.10 1.49 +0.39▲

Cycleways 1.05 1.35 +0.30▲




Extremely high Developing and maintaining the road network

Very high Regulating traffic flow

Flood prevention

Stormwater drainage

High Footpaths

Kerb and guttering

Moderately high Cycleways


There were no significant differences between the age groups.


Females indicated higher levels of importance for ‘footpaths’.


There were no significant differences from 2012.




Community Research


Infrastructure



Moderate Flood prevention

Stormwater drainage

Moderately low Regulating traffic flow

Cycleways

Low Footpaths

Kerb and guttering



There were no significant differences between the age groups.




Compared to 2012, satisfaction has increased for 5 of the 7 services/facilities, ‘flood prevention’, ‘stormwater

drainage’, ‘regulating traffic flow’, ‘cycleways’, and ‘developing and maintaining the road network’.




Community Research


Infrastructure

Quadrant Analysis

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOW

ER

SA

TISFA

CTI

ON

HIG

HER

SA

TISFA

CTIO

N

Developing and maintaining the road networkRegulating traffic flowStormwater drainage

IMPROVE

Kerb and gutteringFootpathsCycleways

NICHE

Nil

COMMUNITY

Flood prevention

MAINTAIN

Recommendations




Stormwater drainage

Cessnock Council also needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:

Flood prevention




Community Research


Governance










Governance – Contributes to Almost 36% of Overall Satisfaction with Council

4.9%

5.1%

7.8%

8.1%

9.8%

35.7%

0.0% 9.0% 18.0% 27.0% 36.0%


about Council activities

The way Council employees deal

with the public

Council’s response to community

needs

Community involvement in

Council decision making


Nett - Governance




Community Research


Governance


Importance

Mean ratings

2014 2012

4.46 4.41

4.43 4.40

4.38 4.36

4.33 4.27

4.30 4.26

Satisfaction

Mean ratings

2014 2012

2.80▲ 2.60

2.96▲ 2.77

3.27▲ 3.02

2.87▲ 2.69

3.01 2.84



53%

56%

58%

63%

62%

31%

28%

25%

22%

25%

12%

11%

13%

12%

9%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Information supplied to residents about

Council activities


decision making

The way Council employees deal with the

public




Base: n = 401

11%

7%

15%

10%

5%

26%

20%

33%

19%

17%

26%

36%

26%

37%

41%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Information supplied to residents about

Council activities


decision making

The way Council employees deal with the

public




Base: n = 339-356




Community Research


Governance


shift 2014 2012

Council’s response to community needs 1.66 1.83 +0.17

Long term planning and vision 1.47 1.59 +0.12

Community involvement in Council decision making 1.46 1.57 +0.11

Information supplied to residents about Council activities 1.29 1.43 +0.14

The way Council employees deal with the public 1.11 1.36 +0.25▲




Very high Council’s response to community needs






There were no significant differences by age.


There were no significant differences by gender.




Moderate The way Council employees deal with the public






There were no significant differences by age.


There were no significant differences by gender.


Satisfaction with 4 of the 5 services/facilities has increased since 2012, ‘the way Council employees deal with

the public’, ‘long term planning and vision’, ‘community involvement in Council decision making’ and

‘Council’s response to community needs’.




Community Research


Governance

Quadrant Analysis

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOW

ER

SA

TISFA

CTI

ON

HIG

HER

SA

TISFA

CTIO

N

Council’s response to community needsLong term planning and vision

Community involvement in Council decision makingInformation supplied to residents about Council

activities

IMPROVE

Nil

NICHE

Nil

COMMUNITY


MAINTAIN

Recommendations






Cessnock Council also needs to maintain resident satisfaction with:


Overall Satisfaction with Council


Community Research


Summary

80% of residents were at least ‘somewhat satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance. This is the same

result as our NSW Regional Benchmark, and similar to the All of NSW Benchmark. There has been a

significant increase in overall satisfaction since 2012, when residents were disheartened with the in-fighting

between Councillors and the lack of interest they believed Council exhibited towards them.



18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27

Overall

2014

Overall

2012

Overall

2009

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22▲ 2.43 3.23

NSW LGA BRAND SCORES Metro Regional All of NSW Cessnock City

Council 2014

Mean ratings 3.45 3.22 3.31 3.22


▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of satisfaction (by group)

Base: n= 401

Q3c. (If not very satisfied/not at all satisfied with Council’s performance overall). What is your main reason for feeling

that way?

%

Poor response to residents' issues and enquiries 41%

Efficiency and accountability are poor 32%

Unacceptable condition of local roads 22%

Failure to encourage growth throughout the local economy 11%

Infrastructure improvements are required 10%

Experience of poor service provision 8%

Lack of knowledge of residents' needs 4%

Inability to reduce crime rate 1%

6%

14%

39%

35%

6%

0% 20% 40%


Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied



Community Research


Improving Satisfaction with Council’s Performance

Overview

Using regression analysis, we identified the variables that have the greatest influence on driving positive

overall satisfaction with Council.

* Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway shops

1.0%

1.1%

1.1%

1.1%

1.4%

1.4%

1.5%

1.9%

2.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.2%

2.4%

2.5%

2.6%

2.6%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.9%

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.7%

4.9%

5.1%

5.3%

7.8%

8.1%

9.8%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0%


Cycleways

Public toilets


Swimming pools


Library services





Stormwater drainage

Flood prevention






Footpaths



Kerb and guttering


Inspection of the health and hygiene*


Cemetery management








Community Research




These top 12 services/facilities account for over 60% of overall satisfaction with Council. This indicates that

the remaining 20 attributes we obtained measures on have only a limited impact on the community’s

satisfaction with Cessnock Council performance. Therefore, whilst all 32 service/facility areas are important,

only a minority of them are significant drivers of the community’s overall satisfaction with Council.

These 12 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Cessnock Council will

improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of

influence each attribute contributes to overall satisfaction with Council.

Three broad areas emerge in the above data:

Community engagement: ‘Community involvement in Council decision making’ (8.1%), ‘Council’s

response to community needs’ (7.8%), ‘The way Council employees deal with the public’ (5.1%),

and ‘Information supplied to residents about Council activities’ (4.9%).

Planning: ‘Long term planning and vision’ (9.8%) and ‘Managing residential development’ (2.9%)

Roads: ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ (5.3%), ‘Kerb and guttering’ (3%).

Our new Advanced Shapley Analysis (see overleaf) explores these key drivers in more detail, identifying

whether each attribute is a driver of satisfaction, driver of dissatisfaction, or both.

2.9%

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.7%

4.9%

5.1%

5.3%

7.8%

8.1%

9.8%

0% 5% 10%


Kerb and guttering



and takeaway shops


Cemetery management








Community Research




Advanced Shapley Outcomes

The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall

satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion

of the residents.

The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding the transition towards

satisfaction. If we can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will

positively transition residents who are currently ‘not at all satisfied’ towards being at least ‘somewhat

satisfied’ with Council’s overall performance.

The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If we

can address these areas we will see a lift in our future overall satisfaction results, as we will positively

transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat satisfied’ towards being more satisfied with

Council’s overall performance.

Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers

Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community

-6.0%

-5.2%

-4.7%

-4.7%

-3.5%

-1.5%

-1.7%

-0.5%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.4%

-1.9%

3.8%

2.9%

3.1%

0.6%

1.6%

3.4%

2.1%

3.2%

0.4%

1.2%

1.6%

0.9%

-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%







Cemetery management


Inspection of the health and hygiene of local restaurants and takeaway

shops


Kerb and guttering


Optimisers(25%)

Barriers(36%)

An attribute such as ‘Developing and maintaining the road network’ has the ability to cause overall

dissatisfaction with Council, but is less likely to drive overall satisfaction. In contrast an attribute such as

‘information supplied to residents about Council activities’, won’t necessarily generate overall

dissatisfaction with Council, but it is capable of driving satisfaction with Council. An attribute such as ‘Kerb

and guttering’ can drive both overall satisfaction and overall dissatisfaction with Council.

Section D Council’s Financial

Sustainability


Community Research


Support for Financial Sustainability from Council

Summary

Residents are supportive of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable, with 95% being at least

‘somewhat supportive’.

No significant differences were observed by age or gender.

Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs, increasing

revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations?

Overall 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Mean ratings 4.04 4.17 4.13 3.99 3.93 4.12 3.97

Base: n=401

Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive

▼▲= significantly lower/higher (by group)

Q4b. Why do you say that?

Supportive/Very supportive N=377

Council has the responsibility to be financially sustainable 38%

Beneficial for the community - maintaining services/infrastructure, preventing rate increases, improving

Council transparency 26%

Initiative will ensure future financial health 8%

Community have the responsibility to support Council's financial management 6%

Approve of Council’s performance in general 1%

Somewhat supportive

Not convinced that savings will be implemented as proposed 7%

Council's financial management should improve to make such measures unnecessary 6%

Quality of services needs to be maintained alongside cost reductions 5%

Details of initiative have not been communicated effectively enough to form an opinion 2%

Greater community consultation is required before implementation 1%

Not very/Not at all supportive

Not convinced that savings will be implemented as proposed 3%

Council's financial management should improve to make such measures unnecessary 2%

Details of proposal are not sufficiently clear 1%

2%

3%

18%

42%

35%

0% 25% 50%

Not at all supportive

Not very supportive

Somewhat supportive

Supportive

Very supportive



Community Research


Financial Sustainability Initiative

Summary

The majority of residents (56%) believe it very important for Council to examine a range of options identified

in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to consideration of a future special rates levy. None of the

residents rated it as unimportant.


Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range of

options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates levy?

Overall 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Mean ratings 4.46 4.36 4.49 4.51 4.45 4.42 4.49

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Base: n=401

0%

0%

10%

34%

56%

0% 30% 60%

Not at all important

Not very important

Somewhat important

Important

Very important


Section E Council communication


Community Research


Satisfaction with Level of Communication

Summary

Q6a. How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?

Overall

2014

Overall

2012

Overall

2009 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Satisfaction mean ratings 3.22 2.95 3.28 3.13 3.07 3.28 3.33 3.20 3.23


Base: n=401

Q6b. (If not very satisfied/not at all satisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

N=86

Greater transparency and consultation with the community 52%

Increasing paper mail communication - letterbox drops, newsletters, leaflets, flyers 35%

Increasing online communication - social media presence, email communication, website navigation 21%

Providing more information through local newspapers 13%

More frequent and thorough communication provision 6%

Better responsiveness to enquiries 5%

Look into various alternative methods of communication 1%

6%

17%

33%

37%

7%

0% 20% 40%


Not very satisfied

Somewhat

Satisfied

Very satisfied



Community Research


Means of Sourcing Information about Council

Summary

The ‘Cessnock Advertiser’ has the highest recall (82%), followed by ‘word of mouth’ (75%) and ‘Council

brochures and displays’ (63%). Since 2009 there has been a noticeable increase in terms of attaining

information from ‘Council brochures and displays’ and ‘Council’s website’.

Those aged 18-29 were more likely than the other age groups to be informed by the ‘Maitland Mercury’,

whilst those aged 60+ were less likely to become aware by ‘Council’s website’ and ‘Council’s Facebook

Page’.

Q7. In which of the following ways have you been kept informed about Council activities and services?

Base: 2014 n=401, 2012 n=400, 2009 n=500

10%

4%

17%

19%

18%

18%

17%

37%

39%

69%

88%

1%

8%

9%

11%

7%

9%

24%

19%

29%

17%

31%

49%

73%

86%

1%

9%

10%

14%

16%

18%

23%

24%

28%

30%

32%

63%

75%

82%

0% 45% 90%

Council’s Twitter messages

Council meetings/briefings

Our Own News Wollombi

Maitland Mercury

Council’s Facebook page

Branxton/Greta Vineyards News

Radio

Council staff

Television

Council’s website

Newcastle Herald

Council brochures and displays

Word of mouth

Cessnock Advertiser

2014 2012 2009


Community Research


Information Sources – by Region

Summary

The ‘Cessnock Advertiser’ is the dominant information source in ‘Central Cessnock & surrounds’, ‘Kurri Kurri &

surrounds’, and ‘Rural West’, however, in ‘Greta-Branxton & surrounds’ the ‘Branxton/Greta Vineyards news’

is the dominant information source.

Although the differences are not significant, there is some indication in the data that the ‘Rural West’

residents are less likely than other residents to rely on ‘Council brochures and displays’, perhaps because of

their remoteness – but they are equally likely to use ‘Council’s website’.


Base: 2014 n=401

93%

74%

67%

37%

32%

31%

28%

23%

9%

21%

11%

8%

10%

2%

82%

79%

66%

30%

28%

24%

21%

23%

6%

14%

15%

11%

5%

0%

46%

72%

56%

21%

22%

24%

18%

23%

79%

7%

29%

10%

8%

0%

78%

63%

41%

29%

36%

27%

28%

23%

20%

11%

2%

19%

13%

3%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Cessnock Advertiser

Word of mouth

Council brochures and displays

Newcastle Herald

Council's website

Television

Council staff

Radio

Branxton/Greta Vineyards News

Council's Facebook page

Maitland Mercury

Our Own News Wollombi

Council meetings/briefings

Council Twitter messages

Central Cessnock & Surrounds (N=187)

Kurri Kurri & Surrounds (N=128)

Greta-Branxton & Surrounds (N=53)

Rural West (N=33)

Section E Demographics


Community Research


Demographics

Q7. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

%

18-29 21%

30-44 24%

45-59 24%

60+ 31%

Q8. Which town or area do you live in?

%

Cessnock 28%

Kurri Kurri 11%

Weston 7%

Bellbird (incl. heights) 5%

Branxton 5%

Paxton 4%

Abermain 4%

Pelaw Main 4%

Greta 3%

Nulkaba 3%

North Rothbury 3%

Heddon Greta 3%

Aberdare 2%

Kearsley 2%

Millfield 2%

Mulbring 2%

Cessnock West 2%

Cessnock East 2%

East Branxton 2%

Ellalong 1%

Kitchener 1%

Cessnock South 1%

Stanford Merthyr 1%

Rothbury 1%

Bucketty 1%

Mount Vincent 1%

Demographics


Community Research


Q9. How long have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area?

%

6 months – 2 years 1%

3 – 5 years 7%

6 – 10 years 13%

11 – 20 years 15%

More than 20 years 64%

Q10. Gender.

%

Male 49%

Female 51%

Appendix A Data and Correlation Tables

Agreement with Specific Statements Regarding

Living in Cessnock


Community Research


Quality of Life

Overall

2014

Overall

2012

Overall

2009 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female

Mean ratings 3.78 3.76 3.79 3.56 3.76 3.81 3.92 3.85 3.71


%

Strongly agree 22%

Agree 45%

Neither agree nor disagree 25%

Disagree 6%

Strongly disagree 2%

Base 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Community

18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall

There is a strong community

spirit in the Cessnock area 3.27 3.36 3.63 3.76 3.45 3.60 3.53




3.21 3.42 3.62 3.72 3.45 3.58 3.52

Facilities and services for

children are adequate 3.17 2.48▼ 2.79 3.00 2.86 2.86 2.86


are adequate 2.83 2.34 2.56 2.66 2.68 2.52 2.59

Facilities and services for the

aged are adequate 3.40▲ 2.83 2.85 2.98 3.02 2.98 3.00

It is a safe place to live 3.21 2.98 3.32 3.46 3.24 3.27 3.26


are well catered for 3.29 3.20 3.26 3.37 3.23 3.34 3.28

Quality housing is both

available and affordable 3.17 3.16 3.17 3.31 3.20 3.22 3.21



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base

There is a strong community spirit in

the Cessnock area 5% 8% 38% 27% 22% 100% 401




5% 15% 26% 33% 21% 100% 401


are well catered for 7% 16% 34% 26% 16% 100% 401

It is a safe place to live 6% 17% 34% 31% 12% 100% 401

Quality housing is both available

and affordable 7% 13% 41% 30% 9% 100% 401

Facilities and services for the aged

are adequate 10% 19% 39% 24% 8% 100% 401

Facilities and services for children

are adequate 12% 24% 35% 21% 7% 100% 401

Facilities and services for youth are

adequate 19% 27% 35% 14% 5% 100% 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Economy


The vineyards play an important

role in the local economy 4.72 4.51 4.31 4.32 4.41 4.48 4.45

Conferences and events are

important for the area 4.19 4.42 4.41 4.12 4.29 4.26 4.28

Tourism is promoted well 4.05 3.83 3.99 4.06 4.00 3.97 3.99

High quality and

environmentally friendly

industries are encouraged

3.39 3.00 3.13 3.01 3.03 3.20 3.11


opportunities are good 3.08 2.91 2.86 3.07 2.90 3.06 2.98


development is working well 3.28 2.51 2.81 2.79 2.68 2.98 2.83

There are enough employment

opportunities 2.29 2.18 2.12 2.09 2.11 2.20 2.16



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base

The vineyards play an important

role in the local economy 1% 4% 7% 27% 62% 100% 401

Conferences and events are

important for the area 0% 4% 12% 36% 48% 100% 401

Tourism is promoted well 3% 7% 16% 39% 36% 100% 401

High quality and environmentally

friendly industries are

encouraged

11% 11% 41% 29% 8% 100% 401


opportunities are good 10% 23% 34% 25% 8% 100% 401


development is working well 12% 27% 34% 21% 6% 100% 401

There are enough employment

opportunities 27% 44% 19% 7% 3% 100% 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Environment



appearance 3.63 3.31 3.58 3.50 3.54 3.47 3.50

The natural environment is well

managed 3.52 3.05 3.27 3.23 3.19 3.32 3.26

Environmental issues are

handled well 3.16 3.03 2.98 3.00 3.02 3.05 3.03

The bushland that supports a

diversity of native plants

and animals is valuable

4.15 4.19 4.12 4.03 4.08 4.14 4.11

The area’s heritage is well

conserved 3.72 3.60 3.58 3.57 3.61 3.61 3.61

Development overall is well

planned and well

managed

3.11 2.57 2.76 2.97 2.70 2.99 2.85

Residential development is well

managed 3.24 2.59 2.87 3.07 2.84 3.05 2.94

There are enough good quality

open spaces 3.43 3.17 3.32 3.44 3.39 3.30 3.34

There is a wide range of

recreation and leisure

opportunities

2.79 2.70 3.13 3.22 3.02 2.94 2.98


are well managed 3.28 3.56 3.76 3.86 3.62 3.66 3.64



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base

The bushland that supports a diversity

of native plants and animals is

valuable

2% 2% 20% 34% 42% 100% 401

Waste collection and disposal are well

managed 6% 10% 21% 38% 24% 100% 401

The area’s heritage is well conserved 3% 7% 31% 43% 16% 100% 401


appearance 5% 9% 32% 37% 17% 100% 401

There are enough good quality open

spaces 6% 19% 28% 30% 17% 100% 401

The natural environment is well

managed 8% 12% 40% 30% 11% 100% 401

Environmental issues are handled well 7% 19% 45% 20% 9% 100% 401

There is a wide range of recreation and

leisure opportunities 11% 22% 33% 25% 8% 100% 401

Residential development is well

managed 12% 21% 37% 21% 9% 100% 401

Development overall is well planned

and well managed 15% 22% 35% 20% 8% 100% 401


in Cessnock


Community Research


Infrastructure


The road network is effective

and in good repair 2.04 1.72 1.87 2.00 1.90 1.92 1.91

There is enough public transport 3.01 2.54 2.61 2.73 2.65 2.78 2.71

Health facilities are sufficient 3.00 2.51 2.79 2.91 2.85 2.76 2.80



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base

The road network is effective and in

good repair 43% 34% 16% 4% 3% 100% 401

There is enough public transport 23% 23% 25% 17% 12% 100% 401

Health facilities are sufficient 14% 26% 30% 23% 6% 100% 401

Governance


People volunteer and get

involved in their community 3.47 3.27 3.49 3.65 3.43 3.54 3.48

The opportunity exists for me to

be involved in making

decisions about my

community

3.36 3.01 3.15 3.11 3.24 3.06 3.15

Laws and regulations are

enforced consistently and

fairly

3.43 3.13 3.22 3.28 3.30 3.23 3.26




2.98 2.59 2.63 2.79 2.61 2.88 2.74

There is a clear plan and

direction for the future 3.17 2.70 2.74 2.86 2.80 2.92 2.86



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base




16% 23% 36% 21% 4% 100% 401

There is a clear plan and direction

for the future 12% 19% 45% 18% 6% 100% 401

The opportunity exists for me to be

involved in making decisions

about my community

7% 18% 37% 28% 10% 100% 401

Laws and regulations are enforced

consistently and fairly 5% 16% 36% 31% 11% 100% 401

People volunteer and get involved

in their community 1% 9% 43% 34% 12% 100% 401


Community Research





community 3.29 2.99 3.30 3.42 3.24 3.29 3.26


economy 3.25 2.77 3.04 3.00 2.91 3.10 3.01


environment 3.48 3.20 3.28 3.45 3.33 3.38 3.36

Accessible infrastructure,

services and facilities 3.48 2.89 3.01 3.09 3.18 3.03 3.10


governance 2.98 2.62 2.75 2.97 2.78 2.89 2.84



Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree Total % Base


governance 13% 21% 41% 18% 7% 100% 401


economy 6% 23% 42% 25% 5% 100% 401

Accessible infrastructure, services and

facilities 7% 23% 33% 27% 10% 100% 401


community 4% 12% 45% 32% 7% 100% 401

A sustainable and healthy environment 4% 11% 36% 42% 7% 100% 401


Community Research


Importance/Satisfaction Community

Importance 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall

Buildings for community

activities and meetings 3.61 3.65 3.69 3.67 3.55 3.76 3.66

Community services and

facilities planning 3.67 3.91 4.03 3.92 3.76 4.01 3.89

Facilities and services for youth 4.08 4.10 3.96 3.71 3.78 4.10 3.94

Inspection of the health and

hygiene of local restaurants

and takeaway shops

4.21 4.39 4.44 4.31 4.20 4.47 4.34

Library services 3.87 3.68 3.87 4.18▲ 3.73 4.10 3.92

Performing Arts Centre 3.61 3.63 3.88 3.91 3.53 4.00▲ 3.77

Public toilets 4.20 4.08 4.32 4.24 3.96 4.45▲ 4.21

Satisfaction 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Male Female Overall

Buildings for community

activities and meetings 3.76 3.25 3.24 3.29 3.46 3.28 3.37

Community services and

facilities planning 3.74 2.95 3.05 3.51 3.27 3.31 3.29

Facilities and services for youth 2.98 2.74 2.89 3.21 2.95 2.96 2.96



and takeaway shops

3.40 3.62 3.64 3.77 3.66 3.60 3.63

Library services 4.22 4.06 4.06 4.47▲ 4.17 4.29 4.24

Performing Arts Centre 4.20 4.30 4.24 4.20 4.25 4.22 4.23

Public toilets 2.83 2.34▼ 2.78 2.97 2.86 2.67 2.75

Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied

▼▲= A significantly lower/higher level of importance/satisfaction (by group)

Importance/Satisfaction


Community Research


Community

Not at all

important

Not very

important

Somewhat

important Important

Very

important Total % Base


meetings 4% 8% 28% 38% 22% 100% 401


planning 2% 6% 23% 38% 30% 100% 401

Facilities and services for youth 5% 7% 17% 34% 38% 100% 401



shops

1% 4% 10% 30% 54% 100% 401

Library services 4% 6% 20% 33% 37% 100% 401

Performing Arts Centre 6% 12% 15% 30% 36% 100% 401

Public toilets 3% 4% 15% 23% 54% 100% 401

Not at all

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied Satisfied

Very

satisfied Total % Base


and meetings 3% 16% 33% 38% 10% 100% 239


planning 3% 16% 43% 25% 13% 100% 287

Facilities and services for youth 13% 21% 34% 24% 9% 100% 285



and takeaway shops

3% 6% 34% 39% 18% 100% 341

Library services 0% 1% 13% 45% 41% 100% 292

Performing Arts Centre 2% 4% 10% 39% 45% 100% 278

Public toilets 17% 24% 35% 18% 7% 100% 323



Community Research


Economy


Encouraging business and industry 4.29 4.52 4.42 4.38 4.32 4.48 4.40

Presentation of the CBD main streets 4.12 4.17 4.14 4.15 3.96 4.33▲ 4.15


Encouraging business and industry 3.31 2.82 2.91 3.22 2.90 3.22 3.07

Presentation of the CBD main streets 3.42 3.27 3.43 3.53 3.45 3.40 3.42



Not at all

important

Not very

important

Somewhat

important Important

Very


Encouraging business and industry 2% 2% 10% 25% 60% 100% 401

Presentation of the CBD main streets 2% 4% 13% 36% 44% 100% 401

Not at all

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied Satisfied

Very


Encouraging business and industry 7% 22% 39% 24% 9% 100% 347

Presentation of the CBD main streets 3% 16% 32% 36% 14% 100% 327



Community Research


Environment


Cemetery management 4.08 3.91 4.29 4.27 3.91 4.38▲ 4.15

Environmental protection 4.37 4.41 4.30 4.29 4.19 4.49▲ 4.34

Heritage conservation 4.20 4.15 4.12 4.06 3.97 4.28 4.13

Maintaining open space and

bushland 4.40 4.37 4.35 4.38 4.25 4.49 4.37


development 4.14 4.27 4.30 4.23 4.14 4.33 4.24

Noxious weed control 3.80 4.05 4.39 4.33 4.03 4.29 4.16

Parks and recreation areas 4.83 4.87 4.89 4.82 4.84 4.87 4.85

Recycling and waste reduction 4.37 4.54 4.59 4.58 4.38 4.67▲ 4.53

Sporting fields and buildings 4.00 4.27 4.39 4.37 4.18 4.36 4.27

Swimming pools 4.00 4.27 4.19 4.21 4.02 4.32 4.17

Waste collection and disposal 4.41 4.53 4.65 4.66 4.48 4.67 4.57


Cemetery management 3.74 3.20 3.68 3.76 3.57 3.65 3.62

Environmental protection 3.57 3.01 3.14 3.27 3.14 3.33 3.24

Heritage conservation 3.67 3.44 3.23 3.55 3.44 3.50 3.47


bushland 3.56 3.33 3.26 3.64 3.44 3.47 3.46


development 3.33 2.74 2.94 3.28 3.03 3.12 3.07

Noxious weed control 3.42 3.10 3.02 3.21 3.08 3.24 3.17

Parks and recreation areas 3.45 2.85 3.23 3.50 3.19 3.33 3.26

Recycling and waste reduction 3.65 3.49 3.77 3.89 3.72 3.72 3.72

Sporting fields and buildings 3.95 3.35 3.56 3.82 3.67 3.67 3.67

Swimming pools 3.86 3.24 3.41 3.55 3.57 3.44 3.50

Waste collection and disposal 3.44 3.66 3.82 3.99 3.78 3.75 3.76





Community Research


Environment

Not at all

important

Not very

important

Somewhat

important Important

Very


Cemetery management 4% 4% 15% 29% 49% 100% 401

Environmental protection 0% 2% 18% 24% 56% 100% 401

Heritage conservation 1% 5% 18% 32% 44% 100% 401


bushland 0% 4% 11% 28% 57% 100% 401

Managing residential development 1% 4% 14% 34% 48% 100% 401

Noxious weed control 2% 6% 15% 26% 50% 100% 401

Parks and recreation areas 0% 3% 9% 30% 58% 100% 401

Recycling and waste reduction 0% 2% 6% 27% 64% 100% 401

Sporting fields and buildings 2% 3% 13% 31% 51% 100% 401

Swimming pools 4% 4% 13% 27% 51% 100% 401

Waste collection and disposal 1% 1% 6% 26% 67% 100% 401

Not at all

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied Satisfied

Very


Cemetery management 5% 11% 23% 39% 22% 100% 312

Environmental protection 8% 14% 35% 31% 12% 100% 326

Heritage conservation 4% 9% 36% 38% 13% 100% 303

Maintaining open space and bushland 4% 16% 30% 30% 20% 100% 340

Managing residential development 7% 21% 37% 25% 10% 100% 331

Noxious weed control 10% 13% 38% 28% 11% 100% 317

Parks and recreation areas 8% 17% 32% 28% 15% 100% 357

Recycling and waste reduction 6% 11% 19% 36% 29% 100% 378

Sporting fields and buildings 2% 9% 31% 37% 21% 100% 338

Swimming pools 7% 15% 22% 33% 23% 100% 319

Waste collection and disposal 4% 12% 18% 36% 30% 100% 379



Community Research


Infrastructure


Cycleways 3.65 3.91 4.07 3.81 3.68 4.04 3.86

Developing and maintaining

the road network 4.73 4.83 4.77 4.56 4.65 4.77 4.71

Flood prevention 4.31 4.17 4.50 4.43 4.22 4.49 4.36

Footpaths 4.00 4.10 4.39 4.21 3.97 4.39▲ 4.18

Kerb and guttering 3.99 4.22 4.31 4.17 4.07 4.27 4.17

Regulating traffic flow 4.46 4.35 4.55 4.45 4.37 4.53 4.45

Stormwater drainage 4.08 4.30 4.53 4.45 4.23 4.47 4.36


Cycleways 3.45 2.52 2.62 2.81 2.89 2.73 2.81

Developing and maintaining

the road network 2.35 1.80 2.01 2.39 2.03 2.25 2.14

Flood prevention 3.48 3.19 3.04 3.32 3.23 3.28 3.26

Footpaths 2.92 2.22 2.44 2.47 2.52 2.47 2.49

Kerb and guttering 2.44 2.10 2.40 2.63 2.44 2.38 2.41

Regulating traffic flow 3.12 2.85 2.78 3.07 2.86 3.05 2.96

Stormwater drainage 3.63 3.02 3.04 3.14 3.21 3.14 3.17



Not at all

important

Not very

important

Somewhat

important Important

Very


Cycleways 7% 8% 17% 27% 41% 100% 401


network 2% 2% 2% 13% 82% 100% 401

Flood prevention 2% 2% 12% 27% 57% 100% 401

Footpaths 3% 7% 13% 24% 54% 100% 401

Kerb and guttering 4% 5% 15% 21% 55% 100% 401

Regulating traffic flow 0% 2% 9% 29% 59% 100% 401

Stormwater drainage 1% 2% 13% 28% 56% 100% 401

Not at all

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied Satisfied

Very


Cycleways 17% 24% 28% 21% 9% 100% 282


network 37% 30% 19% 8% 6% 100% 380

Flood prevention 12% 12% 27% 36% 13% 100% 342

Footpaths 27% 28% 22% 15% 8% 100% 324

Kerb and guttering 36% 17% 24% 16% 7% 100% 314

Regulating traffic flow 13% 20% 35% 21% 11% 100% 359

Stormwater drainage 14% 13% 29% 32% 13% 100% 346



Community Research


Governance



Council decision making 4.32 4.32 4.46 4.26 4.23 4.43 4.33


community needs 4.45 4.44 4.53 4.43 4.37 4.55 4.46



activities

4.37 4.20 4.41 4.25 4.20 4.40 4.30

Long term planning and vision 4.49 4.31 4.54 4.38 4.38 4.47 4.43


deal with the public 4.34 4.31 4.46 4.41 4.23 4.53 4.38



Council decision making 2.86 2.74 2.82 3.03 2.82 2.92 2.87


community needs 2.73 2.54 2.84 3.01 2.70 2.89 2.80



activities

2.91 2.82 2.94 3.29 3.06 2.97 3.01

Long term planning and vision 3.14 2.78 2.74 3.15 2.88 3.03 2.96


deal with the public 3.08 2.98 3.33 3.54 3.28 3.27 3.27



Not at all

important

Not very

important

Somewhat

important Important

Very



decision making 3% 2% 11% 28% 56% 100% 401


needs 1% 2% 9% 25% 62% 100% 401


about Council activities 2% 3% 12% 31% 53% 100% 401

Long term planning and vision 1% 2% 12% 22% 63% 100% 401

The way Council employees deal with

the public 0% 3% 13% 25% 58% 100% 401

Not at all

satisfied

Not very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied Satisfied

Very



Council decision making 10% 27% 36% 20% 7% 100% 344


needs 11% 26% 41% 17% 5% 100% 356


about Council activities 12% 24% 26% 26% 11% 100% 339

Long term planning and vision 9% 25% 37% 19% 10% 100% 341

The way Council employees deal

with the public 9% 17% 26% 33% 15% 100% 346


Community Research


Overall Satisfaction with Council




Satisfaction mean ratings 3.24 3.07 3.17 3.37 3.18 3.27 3.22


%

Very satisfied 6%

Satisfied 35%

Somewhat satisfied 39%

Not very satisfied 14%

Not at all satisfied 6%

Base 401

Support for Financial Sustainability from Council

Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs, increasing

revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations?


Mean ratings 4.17 4.13 3.99 3.93 4.12 3.97 4.04

Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive

%

Very supportive 35%

Supportive 42%

Somewhat supportive 18%

Not very supportive 3%

Not at all supportive 2%

Base 401


Community Research


Financial Sustainability Initiative

Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range of

options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates levy?


Importance mean ratings 4.36 4.49 4.51 4.45 4.42 4.49 4.46

%

Very important 56%

Important 34%

Somewhat important 10%

Not very important 0%

Not at all important 0%

Base 401

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

Satisfaction with Level of Communication



Satisfaction mean ratings 3.13 3.07 3.28 3.33 3.20 3.23 3.22


%

Very satisfied 7%

Satisfied 37%

Somewhat satisfied 33%

Not very satisfied 17%

Not at all satisfied 6%

Base 401


Community Research


Means of Sourcing Information about Council



Cessnock Advertiser 69% 80% 88% 87% 86% 79% 82%

Word of mouth 72% 85% 76% 67% 77% 73% 75%

Council brochures and displays 63% 61% 68% 61% 61% 65% 63%

Newcastle Herald 48% 20% 31% 32% 37% 28% 32%

Council’s website 45% 42% 30% 10%▼ 34% 25% 30%

Television 43% 29% 19% 23% 30% 25% 28%

Council staff 23% 21% 33% 22% 31% 18% 24%

Radio 29% 29% 15% 20% 25% 21% 23%

Branxton/Greta Vineyards News 21% 19% 21% 12% 19% 17% 18%

Council’s Facebook page 27% 23% 10% 7%▼ 16% 16% 16%

Maitland Mercury 32%▲ 10% 11% 8% 18% 10% 14%

Our Own News Wollombi 15% 10% 13% 6% 15% 6% 10%

Council meetings/briefings 7% 11% 8% 9% 12% 5% 9%

Council’s Twitter messages 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

▼▲= significantly lower/higher level (by group)

Appendix B Questionnaire



Community Research Page | 1

November 2014


Community Survey 2014

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening

My name is __________ and I am calling on behalf of Cessnock City Council from a research company

called Micromex. We are conducting a survey about the services provided by Council and what Council's

priorities should be in the future.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete and we would like to interview the person in your

household over 18 who had the most recent birthday. Would you please be able to assist?

(If answer is YES)

Is your household in the Cessnock City Council area? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]

Have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area for longer than 6 months? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]

Please confirm that you do not work for Cessnock City Council or a market research company. [IF SO

TERMINATE INTERVIEW]

Are you over the age of 18? [IF NOT TERMINATE INTERVIEW]

Great, I just have to inform you that my supervisor may monitor this call for quality control purposes.

Part A - The Cessnock City Council area as a place to live

Q1. In this section we would like your views on the Cessnock City Council Area as a place to live. Our

desire is to gauge your views on the broader attributes of the Cessnock community, although many

of these issues are not the responsibility of Council. I am going to read out a list of statements about

the Cessnock City Council area and would like you to rate your agreement, or disagreement, with

each of these statements. Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is

strongly agree:

Agreement

Strongly Strongly

disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Community

There is a strong community spirit in the Cessnock area O O O O O

If there was a problem in my community, people would

band together to solve it O O O O O

Facilities and services for children are adequate O O O O O

Facilities and services for youth are adequate O O O O O

Facilities and services for the aged are adequate O O O O O

It is a safe place to live O O O O O

Arts, entertainment and culture are well catered for O O O O O

Quality housing is both available and affordable O O O O O



November 2014

Agreement

Strongly Strongly

disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Economy

Industry and business development is working well O O O O O

There are enough employment opportunities O O O O O

Education and training opportunities are good O O O O O

High quality and environmentally friendly industries

are encouraged O O O O O

Tourism is promoted well O O O O O

The vineyards play an important role in the local

economy O O O O O

Conferences and events are important for the area O O O O O

Environment

The area has an attractive appearance O O O O O

The natural environment is well managed O O O O O

Environmental issues are handled well O O O O O

The bushland that supports a diversity of

native plants and animals is valuable O O O O O

The area’s heritage is well conserved O O O O O

Development overall is well planned and well

managed O O O O O

Residential development is well managed O O O O O

There are enough good quality open spaces O O O O O

There is a wide range of recreation and leisure

opportunities O O O O O

Waste collection and disposal are well managed O O O O O

Infrastructure

There is enough public transport O O O O O

The road network is effective and in good repair O O O O O

Health facilities are sufficient O O O O O

Governance

People volunteer and get involved in their community O O O O O

The opportunity exists for me to be involved in making

decisions about my community O O O O O

Laws and regulations are enforced consistently and fairly O O O O O

There is good co-operation between all levels of

government in the area O O O O O

There is a clear plan and direction for the future O O O O O

Overall

The area offers a good quality of life O O O O O



November 2014

Part B - Priority issues within the Cessnock City Council area

Q2a. The community identified five desired outcomes in the community strategic plan, Cessnock 2023,

how well do you think the following statements describe the Cessnock local government area?

Agreement

Strongly Strongly

disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

A connected, safe and creative community O O O O O

A sustainable and prosperous economy O O O O O

A sustainable and healthy environment O O O O O

Accessible infrastructure, services and facilities O O O O O

Civic leadership and effective governance O O O O O

Q2b. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue for you and your family?

…………………………………………………………………

Q2c. What do you believe is currently the highest priority issue within the town or village where you live?

…………………………………………………………………


…………………………………………………………………



November 2014

Part C - Council services and facilities

Q3a. In the next question I am going to read out a list of Council provided services and facilities. In the

first part could you please indicate that which best describes your opinion of the importance of the

following services/facilities to you, and in the second part, your level of satisfaction with the

performance of Cessnock City Council’s provision of that service. The scale is from 1 to 5 where 1 =

low importance and low satisfaction and where 5 = high importance and high satisfaction.

ONLY RATE SATISFACTION IF IMPORTANCE IS 4 OR 5

Importance Satisfaction

Low High Low High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Facilities and services for youth O O O O O O O O O O


and meetings O O O O O O O O O O

Community services and facilities planning O O O O O O O O O O

Library services O O O O O O O O O O


of local restaurants and takeaway shops O O O O O O O O O O

Performing Arts Centre O O O O O O O O O O

Presentation of the CBD main streets O O O O O O O O O O

Encouraging business and industry O O O O O O O O O O

Environmental protection O O O O O O O O O O

Heritage conservation O O O O O O O O O O

Maintaining open space and bushland O O O O O O O O O O

Noxious weed control O O O O O O O O O O

Managing residential development O O O O O O O O O O

Parks and recreation areas O O O O O O O O O O

Sporting fields and buildings O O O O O O O O O O

Swimming pools O O O O O O O O O O

Cemetery management O O O O O O O O O O

Public toilets O O O O O O O O O O


network O O O O O O O O O O

Regulating traffic flow O O O O O O O O O O

Stormwater drainage O O O O O O O O O O

Flood prevention O O O O O O O O O O

Kerb and guttering O O O O O O O O O O

Footpaths O O O O O O O O O O

Cycleways O O O O O O O O O O

Waste collection and disposal O O O O O O O O O O

Recycling and waste reduction O O O O O O O O O O

Council’s response to community needs O O O O O O O O O O

The way Council employees deal with

the public O O O O O O O O O O


decision making O O O O O O O O O O


about Council activities O O O O O O O O O O

Long term planning and vision O O O O O O O O O O



November 2014

Q3b. Overall, for the last 12 months, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one

or two issues but across all responsibility areas?

O Very satisfied

O Satisfied

O Somewhat satisfied

O Not very satisfied

O Not at all satisfied

Q3c. (If not at all/not very satisfied with Council’s performance overall), what is your main reason for

feeling that way?

.....................................................................................................................................................

Part D - Council’s Financial Sustainability

The Council has recently adopted a Financial Sustainability Initiative to ensure that, over the long-term, it

has sufficient funds to provide the levels of services and infrastructure agreed with the community.

The objectives of this initiative are to reduce costs, increase revenues and improve value-for-money.

This initiative includes nine projects that will, among other things, improve the transparency of subsidies and

sponsorships; take a more strategic approach to Council’s property portfolio; and identify productivity

improvements and cost savings.

Q4a. How supportive are you of Council’s attempts to be financially sustainable by reducing costs,

increasing revenues and improving value-for-money in its operations? Prompt

O Very supportive

O Supportive

O Somewhat supportive

O Not very supportive

O Not at all supportive

Q4b. Why do you say that?

..........................................................................................................................................................

Q4c. Based on what you have been told, how important do you believe it is that Council examine a range

of options identified in the Financial Sustainability Initiative prior to considering a future special rates

levy? Prompt

O Very important

O Important

O Somewhat important

O Not very important

O Not at all important



November 2014

Part E - Council communication


Prompt

O Very satisfied

O Satisfied

O Somewhat

O Not very satisfied

O Not at all satisfied

Q6b. (If not very/not at all satisfied), how do you think Council could improve its communication?

.....................................................................................................................................................


O Radio (specify station).............. O Television (specify station)..............

O Newcastle Herald O Cessnock Advertiser

O Maitland Mercury O Branxton/Greta Vineyards News

O Our Own News Wollombi O Council’s website

O Council’s Facebook page O Council’s Twitter messages

O Council brochures and displays O Council meetings/briefings

O Council staff O Word of mouth

Q8a. During 2016 Council will be reviewing the Community Strategic Plan for the Cessnock local

government area. Would you be interested in contributing to this process?

Yes O No O

Q8b. (If yes), could you please provide us with the following contact details?

Name: …………………………………………..

Phone: …………..…………………………….

Address: …………………………………………

Email: …………………………………………



November 2014

D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Q7. Please stop me when I read out your age group.

O 18 – 29

O 30 – 44

O 45 – 59

O 60 years and over

Q8. Which town or area do you live in?

O Aberdare O East Branxton O Neath

O Abermain O Ellalong O North Rothbury

O Abernethy O Elrington O Nulkaba

O Bellbird (incl. hghts) O Greta O Paxton

O Blackhill O Heddon Greta O Paynes Crossing

O Branxton O Kearsley O Pelaw Main

O Buchanan O Kitchener O Pokolbin

O Bucketty O Kurri Kurri O Quorrobolong

O Cessnock O Laguna O Rothbury

O Cessnock East O Lovedale O Sawyers Gully

O Cessnock South O Millfield O Stanford Merthyr

O Cessnock West O Mount View O Weston

O Cliffleigh O Mount Vincent O Wollombi

O Congewai O Mulbring

O Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………

Q9. How long have you lived in the Cessnock City Council area?

.....................................................................................................................................................

Q10. Gender. (Determined by voice)

O Male O Female

That completes the survey and I thank you for your assistance. This information will assist Council in providing

better services for residents.

I confirm again that my name is …………….. from Micromex Research. If you have any questions with

regards to this survey you may contact Council or discuss this survey with my supervisor on 02 43522388.



November 2014


Appendix C Region Definitions



November 2014

CENTRAL CESSNOCK & SURROUNDS

Cessnock

Bellbird

Nulkaba

Aberdare

Cessnock West

Kearsley

Cessnock East

Cessnock South

Rothbury

Abernethy

Kitchener

Lovedale

Vineyard Grove

KURRI KURRI & SURROUNDS

Kurri Kurri

Weston

Abermain

Heddon Greta

Pelaw Main

Mulbring

Stanford Merthyr

Mount VIncent

GRETA-BRANXTON & SURROUNDS

Branxton

North Rothbury

Greta

East Branxton

RURAL WEST

Paxton

Millfield

Ellalong

Buchanan

Bucketty

Laguna

Date post:	20-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buithuan
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Community Research - 2014 - Cessnock City Council 1... · Satisfaction with Level of Communication...

Documents