2018 STATE-WIDE RESEARCH REPORT - Local Government · J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 – State-wide This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing

LOCAL GOVERNMENT community satisfaction survey

2018 STATE-WIDE RESEARCH REPORT

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

2J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 – State-wide

Background and objectives 5Survey methodology and sampling 6Further information 8Key findings and recommendations 9Summary of findings 20Positives and areas for improvement 32Regression analysis 33Detailed findings 37 Key core measure: Overall performance 38 Key core measure: Customer service 41 Key core measure: Council direction indicators 51 Communications 58Individual service areas 63 Community consultation and engagement 64 Lobbying on behalf of the community 68 Decisions made in the interest of the community 72 The condition of sealed local roads in your area 76 Informing the community 80 The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area 84 Traffic management 88 Parking facilities 92

Contents


Enforcement of local laws 96 Family support services 100 Elderly support services 104 Disadvantaged support services 108 Recreational facilities 112 The appearance of public areas 116 Art centres and libraries 120 Community and cultural activities 124 Waste management 128 Business and community development and tourism 132 Council’s general town planning policy 136 Planning and building permits 140 Environmental sustainability 144 Emergency and disaster management 148 Planning for population growth in the area 152 Roadside slashing and weed control 156 Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area 160 Business and community development 164 Tourism development 168Detailed demographics 172Appendix A: Further project information 180

Contents [CONT’D]


council performance – at a glance

TOP 3 performing areas

74

71

71

The appearance of public areas

Art Centres and libraries

Emergency and disaster management

Overall Council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

65 6059 58 56 56

State-wide

Inter-face

Small Rural

Metro-politan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Top 3 areas for improvement

8043

8053

8054

-38 -26 -26

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Maintenance of unsealed roads

Condition of sealed local roads

Decisions made in the interest of the community


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

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

Participation in the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is optional. Participating councils have various choices as to the content of the questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed, depending on their individual strategic, financial and other considerations.

Background and objectives

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


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

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of each council as determined by the most recent ABS population estimates was purchased from an accredited supplier of publicly available phone records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents within councils, particularly younger people.

A total of n=26,814 completed interviews were achieved overall. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2018.

Survey methodology and sampling

The 2018 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below:

• 2017, n=27,907 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.



• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 18th May – 30th June.

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

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


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

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

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2017. Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds is significantly higher than the result achieved among this group in 2017.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

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

54

57

58

65

50-64

35-49

Overall

18-34

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)


Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix A, including:

Background and objectives

Margins of error

Analysis and reporting

Glossary of terms

Further information

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on (03) 8685 8555.

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS


The average overall performance index score of 59 for councils State-wide is in line with both the 2016 and 2017 result, though it remains just lower than the peak index score of 61 in 2014.

Councils in the Metropolitan group (index score of 65) perform significantly higher (at the 95% confidence interval) than the average for councils State-wide on the measure of overall performance. Conversely, average ratings for councils in the Small Rural, Large Rural and Regional Centres groups are significantly lower than the State-wide average (index scores of 56, 56 and 58 respectively).

The youngest (aged 18 to 34 years) resident cohort has significantly more favourable impressions of council performance overall than the State-wide average (index score of 62). Those aged 35 to 64 years are significantly less favourable (index score of 57 among those aged 35 to 49 years and 54 among those aged 50 to 64 years).

Women (index score of 59) and residents aged 50+ years (index score of 54 among those aged 50 to 64 years and 59 among those aged 65+ years) rate overall performance a significant one index point lower than in 2017. Overall performance ratings among these cohorts have declined a total of three index points each since 2014/2015.

Overall performance

Overall Council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

65 6059 58 56 56

State-wide

Inter-face

Small Rural

Metro-politan

Regional Centres

Large Rural


Overview of core performance measures

Review of overall State-wide ratings for core performance measures (as shown on page 22) shows that performance ratings are largely stable compared to State-wide results in 2017. Average ratings for councils State-wide stayed the same on five of the seven measures, the other two measures moving by only index point.

In addition to overall performance, ratings for sealed local roads (index score of 53), consultation and engagement (index score of 55), community decisions (index score of 54), and advocacy (index score of 54) remain unchanged from 2017.

State-wide average ratings for customer service increased in the past year (index score of 70, one point higher than 2017).

State-wide average ratings for overall council direction decreased in the past year (index score of 52, one point lower than 2017).

Core performance measures are all lower (by one to three points) than previously achieved peak ratings. With an index score of 54, community decisions is three index points lower than the peak rating achieved on this measure in 2014. Council direction is only one index point lower than its highest rating, which was last achieved in 2017. (All other core measures are two points lower than peak ratings.)

Council direction (index score of 52) comprises the only core measure to decline in the past year.

In the past year, a rating decline on the measure of council direction were significant among residents aged 50+ years.

Ratings for overall council direction are significantly lower than the State-wide average for councils in the Small Rural group (index score of 50). Ratings are significantly higher for councils in the Metropolitan group (index score of 54).

Average ratings on core measures for councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than average for councils State-wide, while ratings for councils in the Small Rural group are significantly lower. This pattern is consistent across all core measures. Average ratings for councils in the Large Rural group are also significantly lower on core measures with the exception of overall council direction.


CUSTOMER contact and service

Three in five (62%) residents State-wide have had recent contact with their council. Contact with councils increased significantly by three percentage points since 2017 (59% in 2017).

The main methods of contacting councils remain by telephone and in person (36% and 30% respectively). This pattern has not changed over time, with telephone used more often than in person contact, though the gap between the two widened slightly in the past year. These methods of contact remain well ahead of email (18%).

Council residents aged 35 to 49 years have had the most contact with their local councils (68%), while residents aged 18 to 34 years have had the least contact (55%).

The customer service index score of 70 is a positive result for councils State-wide. Customer service is one of the highest performing areas (it is the highest performing core measure), and perceptions of councils’ customer service increased by one index point since 2017.

Almost one third (31%) of Victorians rate councils’ customer service as ‘very good’, with a further 36% rating customer service as ‘good’.

Customer service ratings for councils in the Metropolitan group and Regional Centres, as well as ratings among women and residentsaged 65+ years (index scores of 72 for/among each group), are significantly higher than the overall average for councils State-wide.

Men and residents aged 35 to 49 and 50 to 64 years are significantly less favourable in their impressions of councils’ customer service (index scores of 68, 68, and 69 respectively).

Among male residents (index score of 68), perceptions of councils’ customer service increased significantly by two index points since 2017, notwithstanding lower than average ratings among this group.

Councils in the Small Rural and Large Ruralgroups (index scores of 69 and 67 respectively) also perform significantly lower in the area of customer service than other groups.


CUSTOMER contact and service [CONT’D]

Among those whose most recent contact with their council was in writing, customer service index scores have increased significantly in the last 12 months (index score of 65, four points higher than 2017).

Conversely, among those whose most recent contact with their council was in person (index score of 74, down two points from 2017) or by telephone (index score of 71, down two points from 2017), customer service index scores have declined significantly in the last 12 months.

Newsletters, sent via mail (32%) or email (26%), are the preferred methods for councils to inform residents about news, information and upcoming events. The gap between mail and email preferences has narrowed over time.

Preference for receiving information via email has increased steadily (from 18% in 2012), while preference for mailed communications has declined (from 42%) since 2012.

Residents aged 50 years or younger divide virtually equally in their preference for a newsletter via mail (30%) versus email (28%). Older residents (aged 50+ years) exhibit a greater – though dwindling – preference for receiving a newsletter in the mail (33%) to email (25%).

The popularity of text messaging has increased to 8% in 2018 from 2% in 2012. Gains have occurred largely among residents aged under 50 years of age (12% in 2018, 8% in 2017, 3% in 2012).


Areas where council is performing well

Art centres and libraries continues to be the area where councils perform most strongly (index score of 74). Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point from 2017, building on last year’s one-point increase.

Two-thirds of residents (67%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

It is however considered one of the least important service areas (importance index score of 65).

Another area where councils Overall are well regarded is the appearance of public areas. With a performance index score of 71, this service area is rated second highest. Ratings in this area have not changed since 2016.

Seven in ten residents (69%) rate councils’ performance in this area as ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Parks and gardens (12%) and public areas (5%) are among the frequently mentioned best things about living in Victoria’s councils.

While not the most important council service, the appearance of public areas is still considered an important council responsibility by residents State-wide (importance index score of 74).

Emergency and disaster management (performance index score of 71) is another area where Councils are rated more highly compared to other service areas. Overall performance State-wide increased in this area by one index point in the last year.

Three in five residents (57%) rate councils’ performance in the area of emergency and disaster management as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ compared to only 6% who rate it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. A further one in five (19%) provide ‘average ratings’ and 18% ‘can’t say’.

This service area also has the highest importance score (importance index of 81).

Ratings for Regional Centres and councils in the Metropolitan group are significantly higher than the averages for councils State-wide in the areas of art centres and libraries and the appearance of public areas, while in the Large Rural group they are significantly lower on these measures. In the case of emergency and disaster management, councils in the Regional Centres group continue to rate significantly higher than the average for councils State-wide, but in this case, councils in the Metropolitan group rate significantly lower.


Areas where council is performing well [CONT’D]

In addition to increases on the measures of art centres and libraries and emergency and disaster management, State-wide averages for councils increased by one to two index points since 2017 in the areas of local streets and footpaths, parking facilities, slashing and weed control, town planning policy, and planning and building permits.


areas in need of attention

The most significant decline in 2018 was a two-point decline on the measure of traffic management(index score of 57). Councils’ performance in this area is at the lowest level recorded (noting that only a subset of councils measure this service).

Performance on this measure declined significantly across almost all demographic groups. Residents aged 50 to 64 years are the exception, although ratings among this group are significantly lower than the average.

Performance index scores for six other measures declined by a significant one index point in the past year. Impressions of waste management, recreational facilities, family support services, environmental sustainability, business/community development/tourism, traffic management, and unsealed roads all declined State-wide since 2017.

Waste management and recreational facilities remain top rated services.

Roads remain a priority area for residents, with sealed local roads (importance index score of 80, performance index score of 53) and unsealed roads(importance index score of 80, performance index score of 43) rating among the most important service areas. However, with a performance index score of 43, the maintenance of unsealed roads is the lowest rated service area. Furthermore, sealed roads is the lowest rated core measure for councils State-wide.

Two in five residents (41%) rate Council performance in the area of unsealed roads as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’.

Almost one in five (17%) council residents State-wide mention sealed road maintenance as their council area most in need of improvement.

Councils in the Small and Large Rural groups rate on average significantly lower on both measures than councils State-wide, while councils in the Interface group rate significantly higher.


FURTHER INSIGHTS

If forced to choose, more residents prefer to see service cuts (48%) to maintain council rates at current levels over rate rises (32%) to improve local services.Over time, preference has been shifting toward ‘service cuts’. In 2012, 44% of residents claimed to prefer service cuts to maintain council rates at current levels. The proportion of residents preferring service cuts has been trending up over time to 50% in 2017 and 48% in 2018. This contrasts with the 40% of residents who in 2012 had a preference for rate rises to improve local services (compared to 32% currently).Residents are almost three times as likely to ‘definitely prefer service cuts’ (24%) as they are to ‘definitely prefer rate rises’ (9%). However, the proportion of residents who ‘definitely prefer service cuts’ has trended downwards over the past few years (from 28% in 2016).

On balance, more residents agree that the direction of councils’ overall performance has improved over the last 12 months (19%) compared to the proportion who believe it has deteriorated (15%), though 44% still believe there is ‘a lot’ of room for improvement.Further, residents State-wide are also more likely to agree that councils are heading in the ‘right’ direction (64%) than the ‘wrong’ direction (25%) (asked of a subset of councils).


For the coming 12 months, councils State-wide should pay particular attention to the service areas where stated importance exceeds rated performance by more than 10 points. Key priorities include the following, where the margin between importance and performance is 20 points or greater:

Unsealed roads (margin of 38 points)

Sealed local roads (margin of 26 points)

Making community decisions (margin of 26 points)

Population growth (margin of 25 points)

Local streets and footpaths (margin of 20 points).

Focus areas for coming 12 months

Consideration should also be given to Large Rural councils and residents aged 50 to 64 years, who appear to be most driving negative opinion in 2018.

On the positive side, councils State-wide should maintain the relatively strong performance in the areas of art centres and libraries, appearance of public areas and emergency and disaster management, alongside other areas where performance index scores are relatively high.

It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from, what is working amongst other groups, especially residents aged 18 to 34 and 65+ years and Metropolitan councils, and use these lessons to build performance experience and perceptions in other areas.


Snapshot of key findings

Higher results in 2018(Significantly higher result than 2017)

• Customer service• Art centres and

libraries• Emergency and

disaster

management• Local streets

and footpaths• Parking facilities• Slashing and

weed control• Town planning• Planning and

building permits

Most favourably disposed towards Council

• Aged 65+ years• Aged 18 to 34 years• Metropolitan councils

Least favourably disposed towards Council

• Aged 50-64 years• Large Rural councils

Lower results in 2018(Significantly lower result than 2017)

• Council direction• Waste

management• Recreational

facilities

• Family support services

• Environmental sustainability

• Business/ Community

development/ Tourism

• Traffic management

• Unsealed roads

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS


2018 summary of core measuresindex score results

60 60 61 60 59 59 5957 57 57 56

54 55 5555 55 56 5553 54

5755 54 54 54

55 55 54 53 53

71 71 7270 69 69 70

52 53 53 5351

5352

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sealed Local Roads

Community Consultation

Customer Service

Overall Council

Direction

Overall Performance Advocacy Making

Community Decisions


2018 Summary of core measuresdetailed analysis

Performance Measures Overall 2018

Overall 2017

Highest score

Lowest score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 59 59 Metropolitan Aged 50-64 years

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

yearsAged 50-64

years

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

yearsAged 50-64

years

MAKING COMMUNITY DECISIONS (Decisions made in the interest of the community) 54 54 Metropolitan Aged 50-64

years

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 70 69Metropolitan,

Regional, Aged 65+, Women

Large Rural

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 53 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years


2018 Summary of Key Community SatisfactionPercentage Results

9

8

5

6

11

31

37

30

24

30

31

36

36

32

32

34

28

18

11

15

13

14

17

8

5

7

5

7

12

6

2

9

20

9

1

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

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

Key Measures Summary Results

19 60 15 5Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


80

80

80

77

78

73

71

74

73

74

75

71

68

79

72

81

73

81

Unsealed roads

Sealed local roads

Community decisions

Population growth

Local streets & footpaths

Town planning policy

Planning & building permits

Consultation & engagement

Slashing & weed control

Traffic management

Informing the community

Parking facilities

Lobbying

Elderly support services

Disadvantaged support serv.

Waste management

Environmental sustainability

Emergency & disaster mngt

Individual Service Areas index score Summaryimportance Vs performance

43

53

54

52

58

54

52

55

55

57

59

56

54

68

61

70

63

71

Importance Performance Net Differential

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

-38

-26

-26

-25

-20

-19

-19

-19

-18

-17

-16

-15

-14

-12

-11

-11

-10

-10


2018 Importance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME

807979797878777674747274737472727271707271706967646261

808079807878777676747275737373737373707170706967666362

807978807679777575737174737373727273707171696967656562

807978797779777575737074727573727272707170697067666562

807981

n/an/a79787575747273737472727373717171

n/a706766

n/a62

807880

n/an/a80777575737373737171727273717170

n/a706666

n/a62

2018 Priority Area Importance

8181

808080

7978

7775

74747474

73737373

72717171

6968

6665

6161

Emergency & disaster mngtWaste management

Unsealed roadsCommunity decisions

Sealed local roadsElderly support services

Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth

Informing the communityAppearance of public areas

Traffic managementConsultation & engagement

Family support servicesSlashing & weed control

Environmental sustainabilityRecreational facilitiesTown planning policy

Disadvantaged support serv.Parking facilities

Planning & building permitsEnforcement of local laws

Business & community dev.Lobbying

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

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


2018 Importance summaryDETAILED PERCENTAGES

423838

4839

4335

3932

2631

25303031

292727272627

232121

1616

12

4344

4333

4238

4336

414640

4640403940

4140

393937

3740

3639

3234

1315

16141515

1818

2224

2225

242323

2524

2427

2527

2731

3134

3540

12

23233

44

25

34

55

44

46

66

85

99

1310

11

1

11

11

112

11

11

22

212232

112111

1

12

23121211111

Waste managementSealed local roads

Elderly support servicesEmergency & disaster mngt

Community decisionsUnsealed roads

Local streets & footpathsPopulation growth

Informing the communityAppearance of public areas

Traffic managementRecreational facilities

Consultation & engagementFamily support services

Environmental sustainabilitySlashing & weed control

Disadvantaged support serv.Town planning policy

Parking facilitiesPlanning & building permits

Enforcement of local lawsLobbying

Business & community dev.Bus/community dev./tourism

Art centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural

%

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

Individual Service Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28


2018 Performance summaryINDEX SCORES OVER TIME

2018 Priority Area Performance

737170717069686764646361616059575955535554535453525144

727169706969686663636361606059575956565453525454515043

737270727069696766646362616061586057555655545555545445

757271737170706866646464626262586057555756555755545345

73717071706969676564

n/a6262

n/a6158605756575555

n/an/a545544

73717072706869676564

n/a6362

n/a6057585661575554

n/an/a525446

747171

706969

6866

646363

616060

5958

5756

5555

545454

535252

43

Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areasEmergency & disaster mngt

Waste managementRecreational facilities

Community & culturalElderly support servicesFamily support services

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Tourism developmentDisadvantaged support serv.

Bus/community dev./tourismBusiness & community dev.

Informing the communityLocal streets & footpaths

Traffic managementParking facilities

Slashing & weed controlConsultation & engagement

LobbyingTown planning policyCommunity decisions

Sealed local roadsPopulation growth

Planning & building permitsUnsealed roads

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.


2018 Performance summarydetailed percentages

Individual Service Areas Performance

242425

221718

1212

14111010

14910101111

78

65

86555

4545

4242

4239

393734

3637

3632

3533343131

3430

3027

2425

2424

19

2118

1822

2519

2526283130

3019

3131

2921

2830

3234

3130

2332

2728

67

47

54

811

1413

815

515

1016

417

101514

1316

613

1324

23

13

22

33

75

27

28

49

212

377

78

25

817

12

104

918

1211

23

123

292

123

321

1599

1814

3820

237

Appearance of public areasWaste management

Art centres & librariesRecreational facilities

Community & culturalEmergency & disaster mngt

Enforcement of local lawsTourism development

Local streets & footpathsInforming the community

Environmental sustainabilityTraffic management

Elderly support servicesParking facilities

Bus/community dev./tourismSlashing & weed controlFamily support services

Sealed local roadsBusiness & community dev.Consultation & engagement

Community decisionsTown planning policy

Population growthDisadvantaged support serv.

LobbyingPlanning & building permits

Unsealed roads%

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 Importance summary by council group

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

Overall

1. Emergency & disaster mngt

2. Waste management

3. Unsealed roads

Metropolitan

1. Waste management


3. Community decisions

Interface

1. Traffic management


3. Waste management

Regional Centres


2. Sealed roads 3. Community

decisions

Large Rural

1. Sealed roads 2. Unsealed roads3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural


2. Waste management

3. Community decisions

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

Overall

1. Community & cultural

2. Tourism development

3. Art centres & libraries

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community dev./tourism


3. Slashing & weed control

Interface



3. Bus/community dev./tourism

Regional Centres



3. Lobbying

Large Rural



3. Traffic management

Small Rural





2018 PERFORMANCE summary by council group

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

Overall


2. Appearance of public areas


Metropolitan


2. Waste management

3. Recreational facilities

Interface



3. Recreational facilities

Regional Centres




Large Rural




Small Rural




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

Overall

1. Unsealed roads2. Planning permits 3. Population

growth

Metropolitan

1. Population growth

2. Planning permits 3. Town planning

policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads2. Population

growth 3. Traffic

management

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities 2. Community

decisions3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Planning permits

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads2. Sealed roads 3. Population

growth


17

11

7

5

5

5

5

7

Sealed Road Maintenance


Communication

Development - Inappropriate

Financial Management

Traffic Management

Waste Management

Nothing

12

9

8

6

6

5

5

5

5

Parks and Gardens

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Customer Service

Community Facilities

Waste Management

Public Areas

Road/Street Maintenance

Generally Good - Overall/NoComplaints

Community/Public Events/Activities

2018 best things about Council detailed percentages2018 services to improve detailed percentages

2018 Best Aspects 2018 Areas for Improvement

% %

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Overall? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey or it could be about something else altogether? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Q17. What does Overall MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36


Positives and Areas for Improvement Summary

Best Things

Areas for Improvement

• Parks and Gardens: 12% (up 2 points from 2017)

• Recreational/Sporting Facilities: 9% (up 1 point from 2017)

• Customer Service - Positive: 8% (up 1 point from 2017)

• Sealed Road Maintenance: 17% (up 2 points from 2017)

• Community Consultation: 11% (up 2 points from 2017)

• Communication: 7% (down 2 points from 2017)


Regression analysis

To predict a respondent’s score on a question related to overall performance, based on knowledge of their performance scores for individual areas, we use regression analysis. For example, suppose we are interested in predicting which areas of local government responsibility could influence a person’s opinion on overall council performance. The independent variables would be areas of responsibility tested (e.g. community consultation, traffic management, etc.) and the dependent variable would be overall performance.

The stronger the correlation between the dependent variable (overall performance) and individual areas of responsibility, the closer the scores will fall to the regression line and the more accurate the prediction. Multiple regression can predict one variable on the basis of several other variables. Therefore, we can test perceptions of council’s overall performance to investigate which set of service areas are influencing respondents' opinions.

In the chart of the regression results overleaf, the horizontal axis represents the net council performance (total above average minus total below average) for each area of responsibility. Areas plotted on the right-side have a higher net performance than those on the left.

The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta Coefficient from the linear regression performed. This measures the contribution of each variable (i.e. each area) to the model, with a larger Beta value indicating a greater effect on overall performance. Therefore areas of responsibility located near the top of the following chart are more likely to have an impact on respondent’s overall rating, than the areas closest to the axis.


Performance on services and overall performance

The 27 performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Service areas with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 26,814 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.537 and adjusted R-square value of 0.536, which means that 53% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 660.95.


Performance on services and overall performance[enlarged right quadrant]

The 27 performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Service areas with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 26,814 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.537 and adjusted R-square value of 0.536, which means that 53% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 660.95.


Regression analysis – Results considerations

The individual service areas which have the strongest influence on the overall performance rating are: o Decisions made in the interest of the

community o The condition of sealed roads (includes local

streets and roads managed by each council but excluding highways and main roads that are managed by VicRoads).

Other key areas with a positive influence on overall performance include:o Council’s general town planningo Appearance of public areaso Community and cultural activitieso Support services o Business and community development.

The appearance of public areas has the strongest positive net performance and a positive relationship to the overall performance rating. Currently, Councils State-wide are performing very well in this area (performance index of 71) and, while public areas should remain a focus, there is greater work to be done elsewhere. This is followed by community and cultural activities.

Decisions made in the community’s interest, condition of sealed roads and Councils’ general town planning, have lower (though still positive) performance index scores, and continuing efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift Councils’ overall performance rating. These areas are among Council’s lower rated performance areas (indices of 53-54).

Good communication with residents promoting Council’s decisions made in the communities’ interest, promotion of road improvements and transparency of town planning could help improve opinion in these areas and drive up overall opinion of Victorian Councils’ performance.

DETAILED FINDINGS

KEY CORE MEASUREOVERALL PERFORMANCE


Overall performanceindex scores

2018 Overall Performance

65

62

60

59

59

59

58

58

57

56

56

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

35-49

Large Rural

Small Rural

50-64

64

62

60

60

60

59

57

58

57

54

58

55

66

62

61

60

59

59

55

58

57

54

57

55

67

64

62

61

61

60

58

59

59

56

59

57

n/a

65

n/a

62

62

61

n/a

60

59

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

60

59

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

n/a

59

58

n/a

n/a

57

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Overall, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


Overall performancedetailed percentages

999101110912

910

7899987

11

373636

3940

4040

4839

353434

3738

4637

3135

363736

3535

3536

2936

393937

3536

3135

3938

111011

109

109

7911

1313

1210

812

1410

555

44443

55

67

65

46

75

222111112122121122

2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan

InterfaceRegional Centres

Large RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

2018 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Overall, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64

KEY CORE MEASURE CUSTOMER SERVICE


Contact last 12 months summary

Overall contact with Overall • 62%, up 3 points on 2017

Most contact with Overall • Aged 35-49 years

Least contact with Overall • Aged 18-34 years

Customer service rating • Index score of 70, up 1 point on 2017

Most satisfied with customer service

• Metropolitan• Regional Centres

• Aged 65+ years• Women

Least satisfied with customer service • Large Rural


68

66

64

64

63

62

61

60

60

59

59

55

35-49

50-64

Interface

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Men

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

2018 contact with council

2018 Contact with Council

%Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 contact with council

2018 Contact with Council

61 60 61 6159 59

62

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Have had contact

%

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person, in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64Note: Please see page 5 for explanation about significant differences


2018 Method of contact with council

2018 Method of Contact

36 3739

3532 32

3634

29 3032

29 2830

13 14 1513 13 14

181816 16

1412 11

1312 11 129 8 8

10

1 2 2 3 3 4 5

1 1 1 2 1 2 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018%

By Email

By Text Message

By SocialMedia

In Writing

Via Website

In Person

By Telephone

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Overall in any of the following ways? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%


2018 MOST recent method of CONTACT WITH COUNCIL

2018 Most Recent Contact

38

4244

4038 39 39

34

29 28

33 3432

30

9 9 10 10 11 1214

12 12 11 10 9 9 86 6 5 5 5 5 5

1 1 2 2 3 2 3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018%

By Email

By Text Message

By SocialMedia

In Writing

Via Website

In Person

By Telephone

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Overall?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%


2018 contact customer serviceindex scores

2018 Customer Service Rating

72

72

72

72

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

67

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

65+

Women

Overall

Interface

35-49

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

Men

Large Rural

71

72

71

72

69

69

68

69

69

68

66

66

73

70

71

72

69

70

69

69

68

69

67

67

73

71

72

72

70

72

70

70

69

70

68

67

n/a

n/a

74

73

72

n/a

71

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

71

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

73

71

n/a

70

n/a

70

70

69

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Overall for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 contact customer servicedetailed percentages

3130303132

3131333232

2831

2834

273130

34

36363637

383837

3835

3836

3537

3539

3635

35

18181717

161717

1616

1619

1919

171918

1817

8888

7786

87

98

88

77

98

6666

555

57577

75

6775

122212122211212111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64



Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Overall for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 contact customer service INDEX scores by method of last contact

75

74

72

71

65

64

57*

Via website

In person

By social media

By telephone

In writing

By email

By text message

75

76

69

73

61

65

84

76

74

74

71

62

69

79

75

77

66

73

66

68

79

74

77

73

75

69

70

82

73

74

75

72

68

68

61

75

75

79

73

69

73

68


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Overall for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


2018 CONTACT Customer servicedetailed percentages by method of last contact


28

40

26

34

19

24

10

42

33

46

35

39

38

44

21

14

19

17

23

16

27

3

6

6

7

9

12

4

1

6

2

6

6

8

15

7

1

2

1

4

2

Via website

In person

By social media

By telephone

In writing

By email

By text message*

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

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Overall for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 *Caution: small sample size < n=30

KEY CORE MEASURE COUNCIL DIRECTION INDICATORS


Council direction

Most satisfied with council direction

Direction headed

• 60% stayed about the same, down 2 points on 2017 • 19% improved, equal points on 2017• 15% deteriorated, up 2 points on 2017

• Aged 18-34 years• Metropolitan

• 65% right direction (17% definitely and 47% probably)• 24% wrong direction (14% probably and 11% definitely)

Council Direction Summary

Improvement• 44% a lot of room for improvement• 45% little room for improvement• 7% not much room for improvement

Rates vs services trade-off • 33% prefer rate rise, up 2 points on 2017• 48% prefer service cuts, down 1 point on 2017

Least satisfied with council direction

• Aged 50-64 years• Small Rural• Aged 35-49 years


2018 Overall COUNCIL direction last 12 monthsINDEX SCORES

2018 Overall Direction

57

54

53

53

53

52

52

52

51

50

50

48

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

56

54

53

55

54

54

53

52

52

51

52

50

56

55

54

51

52

51

51

48

51

49

50

48

58

56

54

53

55

53

53

51

52

51

53

51

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

54

53

n/a

52

51

n/a

50

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

55

53

n/a

52

51

n/a

50

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

53

52

n/a

51

49

n/a

48

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Overall’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 overall council direction last 12 monthsdetailed percentages

191918202019181919

2319181920

24171719

6062

62636363

64646356

6158

6061

6162

5960

151315131313151113

1716

191714

1117

2015

5655554

6544545444

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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

2018 Overall Direction

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Overall’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 room for improvement in servicesdetailed percentages

44

46

40

47

41

46

47

36

51

42

45

37

40

51

46

45

42

48

44

50

46

45

51

40

46

45

51

51

39

40

7

7

7

7

5

5

5

7

6

8

6

6

7

6

7

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

2

1

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

1

2

5

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

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

2018 Room for Improvement

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


2018 right/wrong directiondetailed percentages

1718202021

19182022

917

15171819

1516

19

4747

4849

5250

4947

4646

474946

4853

4542

47

1412

910

910

111110

201513

1413

1514

1511

11109

108

1012

991810

1113

95

1416

9

111314

11101010

1313

711111112

81212

13




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say

2018 Future Direction

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9


2018 rates/service trade offdetailed percentages

9101010111111109891111

812

998

232121

232525

2923

202222

2723

2425

232224

242322

2224

2222

252727

2323

2325

2922

2322

242728

2623

2422

2327

2325

2225

2220

252624

19201918171816

1916

2022

1718

2115

202121




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%

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

2018 Rate Rise v Service Cut

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15

COMMUNICATIONS


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

Communications Summary

Greatest change since 2017 • A text message (+3)

Overall preferred forms of communication

Preferred forms of communication among over 50s

Preferred forms of communication among under 50s

• Newsletter sent via mail (32%)

• Newsletter sent via mail (33%)

• Newsletter sent via mail (30%)• Newsletter sent via email (28%)


4239 39 39 39

3432

18 1921 22

24 25 26

18 18 17 1614 15 1415 15 14 1513 12 12

2 3 3 3 4 58

2 2 2 2 2 3 22 2 2 3 3 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2018 best forms of communication

2018 Best Form

Council Newsletter

via Mail

Council Newsletter via Email

Text Message

Council Newsletter as Local Paper

Insert

Advertising in a Local

Newspaper

Can’t Say

?Other

%

Council Website

Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26


2018 best forms of communication: under 50S

2018 Under 50s Best Form

3937 36 35

37

3230

21 2124 25

27 28 28

18 1916 15

12 1311

14 14 14 1310 10 9

35 5 5 5

8

12

3 2 2 3 3 4 32 3 3 3 4 57

1 0 0 0 1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018%

Council Newsletter

via Mail


Text Message


Insert


Newspaper

?Council Website

Can’t Say

Other

Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26


2018 best forms of communication: over 50S

2018 Over 50s Best Form

46

42 43 42 41

37

33

15 1618 18

21 21

25

18 18 18 17 1618 1716 17

1518

15 15 15

1 1 1 1 2 3 41 1 1 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 3 3 31 1 1 1 1 2 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018%


Insert

Council Newsletter

via Mail


Text Message


Newspaper

?Council Website

Can’t Say

Other

Q13. If Overall was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26

INDIVIDUAL SERVICE AREAS


2018 community consultation and engagementimportance index scores

2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

77

76

76

76

75

75

74

74

72

72

70

68

50-64

65+

Large Rural

Women

Regional Centres

35-49

Small Rural

Overall

Men

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

78

75

75

76

76

75

75

74

72

72

72

67

78

76

76

77

75

76

77

75

73

73

75

72

78

75

75

76

74

76

76

74

72

72

72

68

77

74

n/a

76

n/a

76

n/a

74

71

n/a

n/a

68

77

74

n/a

75

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

67

77

73

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

68

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 community consultation and engagement importance detailed percentages

3029

322928

27272626

3233

3127

3220

3236

31

4041

4142

414343

4138

4141

4040

4137

4141

44

24242224

252525

2729

2321

2426

2335

2318

19

443344456

3345

36

43

3

11

1111111

111

1

11

112111111111111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

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


2018 community consultation and engagement performance index scores

2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

58

57

56

56

55

55

55

55

54

54

54

51

18-34

Metropolitan

Women

Interface

65+

Overall

35-49

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

50-64

58

57

56

53

55

55

53

54

52

55

53

52

57

58

56

55

55

54

54

52

52

55

53

51

59

58

57

57

56

56

54

53

54

56

54

53

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

54

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

54

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

54

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 community consultation and engagement performance detailed percentages

87878889

7778798879

30292931

323233

29303130

3030

3035

3126

28

323232

32323433

323233

3330

3132

3232

3331

151515

14131313

1313

1515

1616

1412

1518

15

767

6555

55

778

86

47

96

910109998

1112

78789888

10




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 lobbying on behalf of the communityimportance index scores

2018 Lobbying Importance

71

70

70

69

69

68

68

68

68

66

66

65

Women

Regional Centres

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Interface

Overall

Large Rural

65+

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

72

72

70

70

70

67

69

69

68

67

66

66

73

69

71

71

71

70

69

70

68

68

69

66

72

68

72

70

71

68

69

70

68

67

68

66

73

n/a

n/a

71

72

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

67

67

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

66

73

n/a

n/a

72

72

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

68

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 lobbying on behalf of the community importance detailed percentages

23232423232323

2125

2822

2519

2720

2626

21

37393839404041

3635

3639

3936

3936

3736

41

27272728

272727

2927

2626

2730

2532

262625

87666

66

99

78

610

698

87

22

22121

322

31

31223

3

22322222212122111

3




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20


2018 lobbying on behalf of the community performance index scores

2018 Lobbying Performance

57

56

55

54

54

54

54

53

53

52

52

50

18-34

Metropolitan

65+

Interface

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

57

56

55

54

55

54

54

55

53

51

52

51

57

56

54

55

54

53

52

54

53

50

51

50

58

58

57

56

56

55

55

56

55

53

53

53

59

n/a

57

n/a

57

56

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

54

53

59

n/a

57

n/a

56

55

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

53

52

60

n/a

57

n/a

56

55

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

53

52

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 lobbying on behalf of the community performance detailed percentages

555666655656556556

242423

26272627

2424

2623

252524

3123

2024

323131

32323333

3132

3534

303233

3333

3331

131313

12111212

1011

1414141412

1113

1612

555

4444

45

5666

54

67

5

20222220191817

2623

14191919

2117

2019

23




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Lobbying Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 decisions made in the interest of the communityimportance index scores

2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

81

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

77

Women

Regional Centres

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Interface

Men

Small Rural

81

82

81

81

80

79

79

78

79

79

78

78

82

82

80

80

80

80

79

79

79

79

77

n/a

81

80

82

80

80

80

80

78

79

78

77

82

81

n/a

81

80

n/a

79

n/a

78

79

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 decisions made in the interest of the community importance detailed percentages

39

39

39

38

37

38

33

42

40

34

35

42

37

42

42

35

42

42

42

42

43

42

47

41

41

41

43

41

44

39

39

46

15

15

14

15

16

16

15

13

14

21

17

13

17

15

13

14

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15


2018 decisions made in the interest of the community performance index scores

2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

58

57

56

54

54

54

53

52

52

52

52

50

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

65+

Overall

Men

35-49

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

58

58

55

55

55

54

53

52

55

52

51

51

59

58

56

55

54

54

53

52

53

51

50

50

59

59

58

56

55

55

54

53

56

52

52

52

n/a

60

n/a

57

58

57

56

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 decisions made in the interest of the community performance detailed percentages

6

6

7

7

7

8

6

7

5

6

6

6

6

6

5

7

30

29

29

31

33

32

32

28

28

29

29

30

37

29

25

27

34

34

33

33

34

32

33

35

36

34

33

35

32

34

35

35

14

14

14

14

12

10

11

18

15

15

15

14

12

15

17

14

7

7

8

6

5

5

6

8

8

9

8

6

6

8

9

7

9

10

10

9

10

13

12

6

7

7

8

9

7

9

9

10

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 the condition of sealed local roads in your areaimportance index scores

2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

84

82

82

81

81

80

80

80

80

78

78

77

Small Rural

Interface

50-64

Regional Centres

Women

35-49

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Men

Metropolitan

18-34

81

79

80

80

80

79

79

77

78

77

77

75

n/a

79

79

76

79

78

79

80

78

76

76

76

78

77

78

77

78

77

78

78

76

75

75

73

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

79

79

78

n/a

77

75

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the condition of sealed local roads in your area importance detailed percentages

38

35

34

32

33

33

45

41

39

47

35

40

35

39

43

36

44

44

46

44

45

46

41

44

43

45

45

44

42

45

41

50

15

18

16

20

18

18

12

13

15

7

17

13

19

14

14

12

2

2

3

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17


2018 the condition of sealed local roads in your area performance index scores

2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

68

57

55

55

54

53

53

53

52

50

49

45

Metropolitan

Interface

18-34

65+

Regional Centres

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Large Rural

66

59

56

54

53

53

53

54

52

51

50

43

67

60

58

56

54

54

54

54

52

51

52

44

69

60

57

57

55

55

55

55

53

52

52

45

n/a

n/a

59

56

n/a

55

55

55

54

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the condition of sealed local roads in your area performance detailed percentages

11

11

11

11

12

20

12

12

6

7

11

10

13

11

9

10

31

32

33

33

33

44

37

31

24

27

32

31

34

31

28

33

28

28

28

29

27

23

27

29

29

31

27

29

26

27

29

31

17

16

16

16

17

8

15

17

22

19

17

17

16

18

20

15

12

12

11

10

10

4

8

10

18

14

12

11

11

13

14

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 informing the communityimportance index scores

2018 Informing Community Importance

77

77

77

76

76

75

75

75

75

73

73

72

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

50-64

Small Rural

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

77

77

74

76

76

76

74

74

74

73

72

71

79

76

77

76

77

78

77

76

75

74

75

72

78

76

74

75

77

76

76

75

75

73

73

72

78

n/a

n/a

75

76

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

73

71

78

n/a

n/a

75

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

73

71

78

n/a

n/a

75

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

74

72

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 informing the community importance detailed percentages

3230

3330303031

293537

3232

2736

313234

30

4143

4244434444

4142

414140

4141

3739

4146

222320222222

2124

2117

2323

2520

2624

2019

44

4333

45

1444

53

5443

11

1111

1111112

1111

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Informing Community Importance

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


2018 informing the community performance index scores

2018 Informing Community Performance

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

59

58

58

56

56

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Women

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

Men

Small Rural

50-64

60

61

55

60

61

60

59

58

59

58

58

57

61

63

55

60

59

56

59

59

59

58

58

56

62

64

56

62

61

59

61

58

61

60

60

58

63

n/a

n/a

63

65

n/a

62

n/a

62

62

n/a

60

63

n/a

n/a

62

63

n/a

61

n/a

60

61

n/a

59

63

n/a

n/a

61

62

n/a

60

n/a

58

59

n/a

57

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 informing the community performance detailed percentages

1111121213121212

1114

1110111212111012

363535

3840

3838374033

3634

3536

3935

3236

313231

3130

32313130

3031

3130

3231

3032

31

1313

13121111

131213

1414

1414

1211

1416

13

55

54

434

4475

7654

675

334233233233333333




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Informing Community Performance

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


2018 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance index scores

2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance

80

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

77

76

76

75

Interface

Women

50-64

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

65+

35-49

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural

18-34

80

79

78

78

77

78

78

77

75

75

76

74

79

80

78

78

77

77

78

77

77

74

75

76

78

79

78

77

77

78

78

77

77

75

76

75

n/a

79

78

n/a

n/a

77

78

77

n/a

74

n/a

74

n/a

81

79

n/a

n/a

78

78

78

n/a

75

n/a

75

n/a

79

79

n/a

n/a

78

77

77

n/a

74

n/a

74

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance detailed percentages

353434343335

3236

4037

343132

39343638

34

4342434344

4446

4441

4241

4443

4239

4342

47

18191819181818

1717

1720

1920

1622

181515

32

22322

21

33

43

242

32

111111

111

1

1121111

11211

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21


2018 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance index scores

2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance

64

62

59

59

59

58

58

58

58

57

56

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

Men

Overall

35-49

Women

65+

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural

62

60

56

57

57

57

56

56

57

57

54

53

63

60

57

58

58

57

57

56

57

58

55

53

64

62

56

58

59

58

58

57

57

59

55

54

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

59

58

57

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

59

58

57

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

58

57

56

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance detailed percentages

14131213131413

1814

1710121413

1714

1112

343334343433

3439

3831

3233

3633

3835

3233

282828282828

2826

2528

2929

2629

2527

3029

141514151515

1511

1516

16141415

1314

1614

7987789

487

1088

76

887

223321111234321234




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30


2018 traffic managementimportance index scores

2018 Traffic Management Importance

84

77

76

74

74

74

74

73

73

71

67

63

Interface

Women

Metropolitan

35-49

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

50-64

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Small Rural

67

75

76

72

74

72

71

72

71

69

67

62

71

75

75

72

73

72

72

72

70

69

70

63

68

73

74

71

73

71

72

72

68

68

68

57

n/a

73

n/a

69

73

70

n/a

71

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

71

74

72

n/a

74

70

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

73

75

73

n/a

74

72

70

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 traffic management importance detailed percentages

312727

2523

2629

3451

2922

1626

36313233

30

404141

4142

4242

4235

4040

3540

4039

413744

222424

2627

2523

2012

2626

3525

1924

2123

21

56666553

14

1013

64

55

54

111111111

31

21

11

21

11111111

11

1

1

11




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Traffic Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11


2018 traffic management performance index scores

2018 Traffic Management Performance

65

60

58

58

57

57

57

56

56

55

55

51

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

Women

65+

Metropolitan

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

50-64

35-49

Interface

67

62

61

60

60

56

59

61

58

57

58

59

65

62

61

60

60

56

59

59

57

57

57

57

67

59

62

60

60

57

60

62

59

57

58

61

n/a

n/a

63

61

60

n/a

60

n/a

60

58

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

60

61

n/a

60

n/a

59

57

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

59

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

56

55

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 traffic management performance detailed percentages

101010101010910

71111

141010111089

3638384040

393837

3132

3744

3437

3934

3435

3030

303130

3131

2929

3332

2530

2928

2831

32

1513

1312121313

1521

1410

1016

1413

181613

75

655557

118

52

87

887

6

3343333221

4533123

5




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Traffic Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14


2018 parking facilitiesimportance index scores

2018 Parking Importance

75

74

74

73

72

71

70

69

69

66

64

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Metropolitan

50-64

Overall

35-49

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Small Rural

72

73

73

73

71

70

69

67

66

66

64

73

74

73

72

70

70

69

68

66

68

65

74

74

74

72

71

70

70

67

67

67

67

n/a

74

74

n/a

71

70

69

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

73

71

70

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

72

71

70

68

68

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 parking facilities importance detailed percentages

2725

24242425

2429

3319

1622

3127

252728

3939414140

4242

4039

3737

3939

3438

4044

2728272728

2627

2521

3333

2925

3129

2621

667666

646

911

858665

111111

11

12111

111

11111

11

1

11

111


Regional CentresLarge RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Parking Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16


2018 parking facilities performance index scores

2018 Parking Performance

60

59

58

57

56

56

56

56

55

55

54

51

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

Interface

Men

Overall

50-64

35-49

Women

Metropolitan

65+

Regional Centres

63

60

56

57

56

55

54

56

55

53

54

52

61

58

57

56

56

56

55

57

56

54

55

54

62

59

59

60

58

57

55

58

56

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

58

57

55

58

57

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

58

57

55

57

56

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

57

56

55

55

56

n/a

55

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 parking facilities performance detailed percentages

9109910999

710912

91011998

3533343635

36353439

2939

373634

3736

3332

31323232323333

3231

283333

3132

3129

3333

15161415151415

1515

191211

1415

131515

15

88

766

66

86

134678

798

8

2233232221

32221223




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Parking Performance

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


2018 enforcement of local lawsimportance index scores

2018 Law Enforcement Importance

74

74

73

72

71

71

71

70

69

68

67

66

Women

Interface

Metropolitan

65+

Regional Centres

50-64

Overall

18-34

35-49

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural

74

73

72

73

71

71

71

70

70

68

68

67

74

73

71

71

70

71

70

70

70

69

66

69

74

71

72

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

67

68

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

71

70

70

68

n/a

66

n/a

75

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

71

71

72

70

n/a

68

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

71

68

n/a

66

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 enforcement of local laws importance detailed percentages

2727262524

2724

3033

2923

1923

3129

2627

25

3738

3841

4040

4139

3835

3638

3639

3534

3743

272627

272826

272421

2831

3330

2426

3027

25

666

56666

667

88

587

64

22211111222

2212211

111111111

1111111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Law Enforcement Importance

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


2018 enforcement of local laws performance index scores

2018 Law Enforcement Performance

67

66

65

64

64

64

64

63

62

62

61

61

18-34

Regional Centres

Women

Metropolitan

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Small Rural

65+

Men

Interface

50-64

67

66

65

64

64

63

64

65

63

63

60

61

67

64

65

64

63

63

63

64

62

62

61

61

70

67

67

66

65

65

66

66

64

64

65

63

69

n/a

67

n/a

66

n/a

66

n/a

64

65

n/a

63

69

n/a

66

n/a

65

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

n/a

62

69

n/a

67

n/a

64

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

n/a

63

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 enforcement of local laws performance detailed percentages

121212131413131212

1611111113

1612

1010

3939

374041

4040

3935

394039

3840

4440

3535

2526

262625

2526

2427

2626

2527

2423

242827

88

867

77

712

77

89

77

99

8

33

433

33

43

2344

33

34

3

12131412111211

141110

131211

147

1214

16




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Law Enforcement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30


2018 family support servicesimportance index scores

2018 Family Support Importance

78

76

76

75

75

74

74

72

72

72

69

69

Women

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

35-49

Overall

65+

Large Rural

50-64

Small Rural

Men

77

76

74

76

73

73

73

71

72

72

71

69

77

75

75

73

73

74

73

71

72

70

72

68

77

74

74

75

72

73

73

72

72

72

72

68

77

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

71

n/a

68

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

72

n/a

72

n/a

68

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 family support services importance detailed percentages

30282828

262727

323434

272323

3735

3228

25

40414142

424444

404039

404038

4139

3939

43

2322

222324222222

2119

2428

2817

2223

2422

55

554444

35

557

345

65

12

21111111

2221112

2

22322222112322111

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Family Support Importance

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


2018 family support services performance index scores

2018 Family Support Performance

68

68

67

67

67

67

67

66

66

66

65

63

65+

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Interface

18-34

Women

35-49

Overall

Men

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

70

68

68

65

67

67

66

67

66

67

65

64

69

69

66

65

66

67

66

66

66

66

64

62

70

68

67

66

67

68

66

67

67

66

67

65

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

69

67

68

68

n/a

n/a

66

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

68

66

67

67

n/a

n/a

64

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

65

67

66

n/a

n/a

64

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 family support services performance detailed percentages

11111011121111101113

91191213

11710

313031

3433

3334

2933

3631

3132

3136

3427

28

212021

21202122

2021

25231821

2123

2222

18

444

444

53

45

54

44

45

52

21

2111

21

23

22

22

21

21

323432

292929

2637

3018

303433

3022

2738

40




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Family Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30


2018 elderly support servicesimportance index scores

2018 Elderly Support Importance

83

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

75

Women

50-64

Interface

Regional Centres

65+

Small Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

35-49

Large Rural

18-34

Men

82

80

78

80

79

79

78

77

77

78

76

74

82

79

79

78

79

79

78

78

78

78

77

75

82

80

77

80

80

80

79

78

78

78

77

75

83

80

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

79

n/a

78

n/a

77

75

83

81

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

79

n/a

79

n/a

77

75

83

81

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

80

n/a

80

n/a

78

76

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 elderly support services importance detailed percentages

38353636

35363736

4044

3639

3045

3538

4237

434444444645

4644

4338

4441

4441

4142

4046

161716

161615

1416

1315

1716

2111

211614

13

22

222

22

22222

31

1222

11

1

1

1

1

1

111

112111111

11111111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Elderly Support Importance

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


2018 elderly support services performance index scores

2018 Elderly Support Performance

70

69

68

68

67

67

67

67

67

67

66

65

65+

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Interface

35-49

Regional Centres

50-64

72

71

68

68

68

67

67

67

64

66

68

66

71

70

69

68

67

67

69

66

59

65

66

66

74

72

69

69

69

67

69

69

65

66

66

67

74

n/a

71

70

70

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

69

74

n/a

70

69

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

67

73

n/a

69

69

68

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 elderly support services performance detailed percentages

14141415161515

1011

1514

1812

1512

1012

19

3231

303434

3334

2730

3732

3532

3133

2929

34

1919

201917

1920

1819

2221

182019

1919

2118

545

444

54

58

55

45

54

65

222

221

21

22

23

22

22

32

293030

262728

2540

3415

2622

292930

3729

22




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Elderly Support Performance

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


2018 disadvantaged support servicesimportance index scores

2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance

76

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

70

69

Women

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Overall

50-64

Interface

35-49

Large Rural

Men

75

71

72

72

71

71

72

70

70

67

76

73

75

72

73

71

73

73

72

69

77

74

74

73

73

73

72

73

72

69

77

n/a

74

72

72

72

n/a

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

75

73

73

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

77

n/a

75

73

73

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 disadvantaged support services importance detailed percentages

27

26

27

28

25

27

27

29

24

24

21

33

28

26

28

25

41

41

42

42

44

43

43

42

45

39

42

41

41

40

40

45

24

24

22

23

23

23

23

23

22

28

28

21

25

26

24

22

4

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

3

4

5

5

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11


2018 disadvantaged support services performance index scores

2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance

64

63

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

58

65+

Men

Interface

18-34

Metropolitan

Overall

Large Rural

Regional Centres

35-49

Women

50-64

64

62

56

61

62

61

61

63

60

61

59

64

61

58

60

62

61

61

59

59

60

59

65

62

61

62

63

62

62

61

61

62

60

67

65

n/a

65

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

62

63

61

64

64

n/a

65

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

61

61

60

66

63

n/a

66

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

60

63

59

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 disadvantaged support services performance detailed percentages

6667878

66

106767657

252524

2828

2728

2326

292525

2429

2221

25

232223

2322

2223

2322

2823

2423

2622

2321

666

65

66

56

96

57

657

5

222

21

22

22

3222

223

1

383939

35353634

4338

20393838

29434241



Large RuralMen

Women18-3435-4950-64


2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance

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


2018 recreational facilitiesimportance index scores

2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

35-49

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

Overall

Metropolitan

Small Rural

65+

18-34

Men

74

74

73

72

72

73

72

73

71

71

71

70

75

75

73

73

72

73

73

73

72

71

72

71

75

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

73

71

70

71

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 recreational facilities importance detailed percentages

252425

232323

2223

2627

2625

2327

2429

2621

464645

4647474948

4645

4645

4647

4446

4650

25262426

26262525

2424

2425

2723

2822

2524

34

43

43

333

3344242

33

11

11

11

1

1111

11

1

1

11

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

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


2018 recreational facilities performance index scores

2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

74

72

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

68

66

Metropolitan

65+

Women

Regional Centres

Overall

18-34

Men

Small Rural

Interface

50-64

35-49

Large Rural

73

73

70

69

70

68

69

69

66

69

68

66

73

72

69

70

69

69

69

68

67

67

67

65

74

73

70

69

70

69

69

70

68

69

67

66

n/a

74

71

n/a

71

71

70

n/a

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

70

70

70

n/a

n/a

69

68

n/a

n/a

74

70

n/a

70

70

69

n/a

n/a

68

67

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 recreational facilities performance detailed percentages

2222212223

2221

262224

19222223

222221

24

4243

4343

444444

4540

4141

424341

4241

4144

2222

232321

2222

2023

2424

21232224

2224

20

77

766774

87

97777

975

323

2222

13

2433234

31

4443333

542

443432

46




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

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


2018 the appearance of public areasimportance index scores

2018 Public Areas Importance

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

Interface

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

18-34

75

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

75

73

72

72

75

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

73

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

73

73

71

70

n/a

75

75

75

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

70

n/a

76

76

75

75

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

72

71

n/a

75

74

74

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the appearance of public areas importance detailed percentages

262626

242526

2325

3029

2426

2329

242729

25

464748

4748

4849

4847

4446

4646

4741

4746

52

242423252523

2524

2123

2724

2821

30232221

22

222222232332

42

22

1

11




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26


2018 the appearance of public areas performance index scores

2018 Public Areas Performance

73

73

72

72

72

71

71

71

71

70

69

68

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Women

65+

18-34

35-49

Overall

Men

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

73

72

74

72

72

72

72

71

71

69

69

66

73

72

73

71

72

72

71

71

71

69

69

66

72

73

74

72

72

73

72

72

71

70

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

73

73

72

72

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

71

72

72

70

71

71

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

72

73

70

71

71

70

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 the appearance of public areas performance detailed percentages

2425242425

242324

1729

2227

2326

2326

2324

4546

464746

4648

4949

4245

4347

444844

4445

212021

2020

2221

2024

2123212221

2120

2322

66655665

75

6666

5675

2222222232

33222

322

11111111

1111

111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Public Areas Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35


2018 art centres and librariesimportance index scores

2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

69

67

67

67

65

65

65

63

62

62

61

61

Women

65+

Metropolitan

Interface

35-49

50-64

Overall

Regional Centres

18-34

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

69

66

67

62

66

64

64

62

61

63

61

60

70

67

68

66

66

65

66

64

64

63

65

60

70

67

69

64

67

65

65

66

63

63

62

61

70

68

n/a

n/a

66

66

66

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

62

70

69

n/a

n/a

67

67

66

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

62

71

68

n/a

n/a

67

67

66

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

62

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 art centres and libraries importance detailed percentages

1615

18161716171818

15121312

1914

171716

3939

4040404242

4237

363635

3542

3439

3746

3434

303333

3333

3136

3339

3536

3138

3235

29

99

988

7777

1210

1213

613986

223211

21

233311

232

11111

11211111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

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


2018 art centres and libraries performance index scores

2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

65+

Regional Centres

Women

Interface

Metropolitan

35-49

Overall

Small Rural

18-34

Men

50-64

Large Rural

76

75

75

72

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

70

75

75

74

68

74

72

72

71

71

70

71

70

76

75

75

72

75

73

73

69

73

72

71

73

78

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

76

75

n/a

74

74

73

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

73

73

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

72

73

n/a

73

71

71

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 art centres and libraries performance detailed percentages

25232324

272524

262727

232322

282525

2228

4243

4244

4444

444143

464143

4243

4444

4141

1818

1818

1718191915

1718

1719

161917

2015

44

54

3453

53

544

45

34

3

112

1122

11

221

11

111

1010109887

1010

6111112

87

101211




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

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


2018 community and cultural activitiesimportance index scores

2018 Community Activities Importance

64

63

62

61

61

61

61

60

60

60

59

57

Women

18-34

Regional Centres

Interface

Metropolitan

Overall

65+

35-49

Large Rural

Small Rural

50-64

Men

65

61

62

57

61

61

61

63

61

62

60

57

66

64

62

63

62

62

61

62

61

64

61

58

66

63

63

59

62

62

61

62

61

65

61

58

65

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

61

62

n/a

n/a

61

58

65

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

63

61

n/a

n/a

62

59

65

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

62

60

n/a

n/a

61

58

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 community and cultural activities importance detailed percentages

12121211111111121314

111110

1415

111111

343537

37373737

3435

3633

3130

3834

3432

36

4039

384041

4139

4139

3643

4642

3939

4242

38

101110109

9101110101011

147

10101111

222212223221

311

332

111

1111111111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Community Activities Importance

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


2018 community and cultural activities performance index scores

2018 Community Activities Performance

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

68

67

67

67

67

Metropolitan

Women

65+

35-49

Small Rural

Overall

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

70

71

70

70

69

69

69

67

67

64

69

68

71

70

69

70

65

69

69

68

67

63

67

67

71

71

71

70

68

69

69

69

68

65

69

68

n/a

71

72

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

68

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

70

71

69

n/a

69

n/a

68

68

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

70

71

68

n/a

68

n/a

68

67

n/a

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 community and cultural activities performance detailed percentages

171717181817

1518

1418

1618

15191818

1517

424241

4344

4444

4242

4341

4141

434144

4042

252525

252425

2624

2725

2628

28232824

2624

555

555

545

67

35

56

564

212

111

112

222

22

12

21

91097889

1110

698

1086

810

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Community Activities Performance

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


2018 waste managementimportance index scores

2018 Waste Management Importance

84

83

83

82

82

82

81

81

81

80

79

78

Interface

Metropolitan

Women

65+

50-64

35-49

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Small Rural

79

81

81

79

80

80

79

79

78

77

78

76

81

82

82

80

81

80

80

79

79

78

79

79

79

81

80

79

81

80

79

80

78

77

76

77

n/a

n/a

80

80

80

79

79

n/a

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

80

81

80

79

n/a

n/a

77

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

79

78

n/a

n/a

77

76

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 waste management importance detailed percentages

423638

353536

324646

4140

3539

4539

4444

41

434645

4647

4749

4243

4342

4643

4342

4142

47

1316

1416

1615

1611

101415

1615

1117

141210

11

21

11

11

21

221211

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Waste Management Importance

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


2018 waste management performance index scores

2018 Waste Management Performance

75

73

70

70

70

70

70

69

69

68

68

67

Metropolitan

65+

Men

Overall

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

75

74

71

71

71

69

71

70

70

69

71

68

76

74

70

70

70

69

70

68

69

67

71

66

77

75

72

72

72

71

73

69

71

70

73

68

n/a

75

73

73

72

n/a

74

71

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

71

70

n/a

73

69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

72

72

72

n/a

73

69

n/a

70

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 waste management performance detailed percentages

2425

242526

2424

2922

2620

232424

222322

28

4544

4547

474748

4844

4145

444544

4744

4345

1818

1817

1618

1716

1820

2019

181919

1921

16

767

6566

410

798

77

7886

33433322

54

44434443

232222211233222223




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Waste Management Performance

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


2018 business and community development and tourism importance index scores

2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

74

71

68

68

67

66

66

65

65

65

62

59

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Interface

Metropolitan

74

72

69

67

69

68

67

67

65

66

65

60

73

71

70

67

68

67

67

69

64

67

65

60

73

70

69

69

68

67

67

70

65

65

64

59

n/a

n/a

70

68

68

67

67

n/a

65

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

68

67

67

n/a

65

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

66

66

66

n/a

63

64

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 business and community development and tourism importance detailed percentages

212121212020

1812

1530

1727

2022

202322

19

36383838

3839

3930

3341

3739

3438

333437

40

3130

30313131

3139

3524

3426

3131

3333

3029

98

878

89

1413

39

711

712

88

7

22

2212232121

31122

3

112111111111111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

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


2018 business and community development and tourism performance index scores

2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

65

62

62

62

61

60

60

59

59

59

59

58

Interface

18-34

Women

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Small Rural

35-49

Regional Centres

Men

50-64

66

63

63

64

60

61

60

64

60

61

60

58

n/a

63

62

62

59

60

62

61

59

62

59

59

63

64

63

63

59

61

62

63

60

63

59

59

n/a

64

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

60

59

n/a

64

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

61

59

n/a

64

63

63

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

60

59

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 business and community development and tourism performance detailed percentages

1011101111101089121212

101111101011

3334

323435

3535

2842

3337

3333

3438

3428

33

3129

313130

3031

3128

3229

3130

3131

3031

30

101010

109

99

95

1211

1112

910

1013

8

433

33

33

22

53

553

35

43

12141412121312

2215

588

1112

711

1315




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23


2018 council’s general town planning policyimportance index scores

2018 Town Planning Importance

76

76

75

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

71

67

65+

50-64

Small Rural

Women

Large Rural

35-49

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Men

Interface

18-34

76

76

76

74

73

74

72

73

71

71

70

64

74

76

77

75

73

74

73

72

72

71

72

68

74

76

72

74

73

74

72

72

73

70

72

66

74

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

66

75

77

n/a

74

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

66

74

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

66

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 council’s general town planning policy importance detailed percentages

272627

2525252527

2426

2930

2530

173133

30

404140

4141424240

3840

4141

4139

3837

4145

2424

2425

25252424

3025

2222

2524

3426

1918

44

44

444444

33

53

6342

11

11

11111111

11

111

1

345454444432

434334




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Town Planning Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11


2018 council’s general town planning policy performance index scores

2018 Town Planning Performance

59

55

54

54

54

54

54

54

53

53

51

50

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

65+

Women

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Metropolitan

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

57

51

56

54

53

53

54

53

53

51

51

49

57

52

54

52

53

52

51

51

54

49

50

48

59

55

55

54

55

54

53

54

55

53

53

51

60

n/a

n/a

55

56

55

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

53

51

60

n/a

n/a

55

55

55

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

53

50

59

n/a

n/a

54

54

54

n/a

53

n/a

n/a

52

50

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 council’s general town planning policy performance detailed percentages

555565555655656556

272625

28282929

263129

2725

2926

3426

2226

313030

31313232

2927

3232

3431

3029

3033

31

131414

12121214

1213

141214

1312

91316

14

777

665

66

57

777

64

97

6

18191917171715

2119

12161514

2118181817




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Town Planning Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17


2018 planning and building permitsimportance index scores

2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

75

74

74

73

71

71

71

71

70

69

68

64

65+

Metropolitan

50-64

Women

35-49

Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural

18-34

75

76

74

74

72

72

69

69

72

70

68

66

74

74

74

74

71

71

69

69

70

69

71

67

74

74

73

73

72

71

69

70

71

69

70

66

74

n/a

73

74

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

66

74

n/a

74

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

65

74

n/a

74

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

66

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 planning and building permits importance detailed percentages

2627

2626252525

32252425

2324

2818

273130

3938

3939414041

38374038

3938

3933

394043

2525

2527252725

22322627

2426

2435

262218

65

65

55

553

66

97

510

55

4

212

111

11111

321221

1

23323232222322211

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

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


2018 planning and building permits performance index scores

2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

57

57

54

52

52

51

51

51

50

50

49

49

18-34

Regional Centres

Interface

Women

Overall

Men

Metropolitan

Small Rural

65+

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

55

60

46

51

51

50

49

51

51

49

48

47

55

55

46

52

50

49

50

50

50

48

50

48

58

57

49

54

54

53

53

53

53

53

54

51

58

n/a

n/a

54

53

53

n/a

n/a

53

51

n/a

50

59

n/a

n/a

55

55

54

n/a

n/a

54

54

n/a

50

60

n/a

n/a

54

54

53

n/a

n/a

53

51

n/a

49

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 planning and building permits performance detailed percentages

555656554

846656546

242322

2525

2626

2525

2822

2125

2230

2421

20

2727

2528

2627

2727

2527

2728

2727

2926

2926

1314

1312

1212

1214

119

1514

1412

101315

14

89

86

767

96

799

97

5119

8

2323

2723

25232321

2821

2323

1926

202122

27




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

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


2018 environmental sustainabilityimportance index scores

2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

77

76

74

73

73

73

73

72

71

70

69

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Men

76

75

73

72

72

73

72

72

70

70

68

77

77

74

73

71

72

73

73

71

74

69

77

75

74

73

73

73

72

73

70

77

69

77

75

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

73

70

n/a

68

76

74

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

72

70

n/a

68

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

71

69

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 environmental sustainability importance detailed percentages

3129302929

2726

323131

2726

3635

3231

26

3940

4041

4042

4140

3937

3737

4038

3738

41

23242123

2424

2422

2225

2627

1921

2423

24

556

55564

65

87

345

65

222122222223112

22

11111111111111

12


Regional CentresLarge RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

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


2018 environmental sustainability performance index scores

2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

64

64

64

64

63

63

63

63

63

62

61

61

18-34

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

35-49

Men

Overall

Women

Small Rural

Large Rural

50-64

64

64

65

62

64

64

64

64

63

63

62

62

64

64

63

60

63

63

62

63

63

61

62

61

65

65

63

63

65

63

64

64

64

63

64

62

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

62

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

62

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

63

64

64

65

n/a

n/a

62

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 environmental sustainability performance detailed percentages

1010111011111110

713

910101012

10910

37373639

394039

3841

3835

3738

3640

3834

36

3029

3030

292929

2830

3231

302931

3028

3231

878

7677

76

79887

88

107

2232222

22

3333

22

33

2

12141313121212

1414

812121213

9131314




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

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


2018 emergency and disaster managementimportance index scores

2018 Disaster Management Importance

85

84

83

82

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

77

Women

Interface

18-34

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Overall

35-49

65+

50-64

Small Rural

Metropolitan

Men

84

82

81

81

80

80

78

80

80

81

77

76

84

83

81

81

80

80

80

80

80

82

76

76

84

81

80

81

81

80

79

79

80

80

77

75

85

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

80

79

80

80

n/a

n/a

76

85

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

80

79

80

80

n/a

n/a

76

84

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

80

79

79

80

n/a

n/a

76

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 emergency and disaster management importance detailed percentages

484545444546

4345

535050

4341

5552

4948

43

333436

353434

3832

3334

3235

3432

3231

3039

141414

15141414

1710

1113

1617

1013

1415

12

34344444233

45

22

443

11111111111

12

111

1

11111111111211

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Disaster Management Importance

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


2018 emergency and disaster management performance index scores

2018 Disaster Management Performance

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

69

69

Regional Centres

18-34

Small Rural

Women

65+

Overall

35-49

Large Rural

Interface

Men

Metropolitan

50-64

70

71

72

71

72

70

69

70

69

69

68

68

68

71

71

71

71

69

68

70

69

68

68

67

68

73

70

71

71

70

68

71

70

69

69

67

n/a

75

n/a

73

72

71

70

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

n/a

72

n/a

70

71

70

69

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

67

n/a

73

n/a

70

71

70

68

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 emergency and disaster management performance detailed percentages

18171717

201919

1217

2319

2216

2021

1816

18

39373639

383738

3539

4041

3940

3845

3936

36

191919

1918

2020

1919

191818

2017

1718

2218

444

5455

33

344

44

44

43

222

2222

12

122

21

22

21

182121

18181716

2920

131615

1819

1119

2122




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Disaster Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21


2018 planning for population growth in the areaimportance index scores

2018 Population Growth Importance

80

79

79

78

78

78

77

77

76

75

74

50-64

Interface

Women

35-49

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Overall

65+

Men

Regional Centres

18-34

79

80

78

78

75

78

76

77

75

75

73

77

79

77

77

75

74

76

75

74

76

74

79

76

77

78

74

74

75

75

73

76

70

78

n/a

77

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

73

n/a

70

78

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

75

74

73

n/a

71

78

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

73

n/a

73

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 planning for population growth in the area importance detailed percentages

3936

3534333434

4145

3341

3741

344244

37

3638

3738

383839

3633

3936

3736

3535

3640

1819

2021

212019

1714

2218

1918

2417

1516

44

545553

544534

444

11

1211111111

11211

1121211111

11111



Large RuralMen

Women18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Population Growth Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12


2018 planning for population growth in the area performance index scores

2018 Population Growth Performance

62

56

52

52

52

51

51

50

50

49

48

Regional Centres

18-34

Women

Overall

Men

65+

35-49

Metropolitan

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

62

57

52

52

53

52

50

51

49

50

48

59

55

51

51

52

52

49

51

48

55

47

61

60

55

54

54

54

51

54

50

57

50

n/a

59

55

54

54

55

52

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

54

54

54

55

51

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

52

52

52

52

48

n/a

49

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 planning for population growth in the area performance detailed percentages

8767776

46

1679

711

867

2424

232828

2625

2323

3120

2424

2923

2221

3029

303030

3131

3228

2829

2930

2831

2931

1616

161415

1416

1721

1019

1716

1417

1817

878

66

67

810

510

97

89

87

1416161515

1714

1613

1015

1216

1012

1619



Large RuralMen

Women18-3435-4950-64


2018 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14


2018 roadside slashing and weed controlimportance index scores

2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

78

76

76

76

75

75

73

73

71

67

62

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Women

Large Rural

Interface

Overall

35-49

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

78

76

76

76

75

76

74

73

71

66

65

76

73

n/a

75

75

76

73

74

71

69

64

76

74

77

75

74

75

73

75

70

65

62

78

76

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

75

76

71

68

n/a

78

77

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

74

76

72

66

n/a

74

73

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

71

71

68

65

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 roadside slashing and weed control importance detailed percentages

2930

2828

3230

2412

313332

2633

2229

3731

404042

4040

4242

3639

4143

4040

3638

4145

25252326

2324

2843

2722

2127

2333

2819

21

445544

57

343

53

8422

111111

11

1111111

11

11

1


InterfaceLarge RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7


2018 roadside slashing and weed control performance index scores

2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

67

61

60

56

55

55

54

54

53

51

51

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

Women

35-49

Overall

Men

Small Rural

65+

50-64

Large Rural

68

58

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

50

50

68

61

56

57

57

56

55

51

54

52

54

69

62

52

55

55

55

54

52

52

51

53

n/a

63

n/a

55

53

55

55

n/a

53

51

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

56

56

56

57

n/a

55

52

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

61

59

61

60

n/a

59

58

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 roadside slashing and weed control performance detailed percentages

101011101111

1416

1298101113

1199

3431

343232

3538

4539

2833

3434

4135

3030

2927

2830

2828

2829

2730

2928

3028

2729

32

1618

1516

1716

127

1318

1716

1510

1619

17

911

99

1085

16

129108

79

118

3332323232323122

4


InterfaceLarge RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11


2018 maintenance of unsealed roads in your areaimportance index scores

2018 Unsealed Roads Importance

84

82

82

81

80

80

79

79

78

78

77

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Interface

Overall

65+

35-49

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Regional Centres

81

81

80

79

79

79

78

76

77

77

76

81

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

77

78

70

82

80

80

78

78

78

79

76

76

76

72

n/a

80

81

n/a

78

77

80

77

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

83

n/a

81

80

82

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

82

n/a

80

79

80

79

78

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance detailed percentages

433940

3939

4441

4636

4049

3946

4343

4639

3839373938

3939

3741

3837

3936

3536

3842

1517

171817

141512

1718

1116

1518

1713

14

33

333224331

42

432

2

11

11111

1

1

1

1

1121111111111

12

2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 Overall



MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+%


2018 Unsealed Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13


2018 maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance index scores

2018 Unsealed Roads Performance

52

48

44

44

43

43

43

42

41

40

40

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

18-34

35-49

Men

Overall

Women

Large Rural

50-64

Small Rural

52

45

45

45

44

44

44

43

42

41

43

n/a

44

45

46

42

43

43

43

43

40

44

51

47

46

48

44

45

45

45

44

43

45

n/a

n/a

48

46

45

46

45

45

n/a

42

n/a

n/a

n/a

48

47

42

45

44

43

n/a

40

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

48

44

46

46

46

n/a

43

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance detailed percentages

555556778

54557

545

192120222220

2223

2618

172019

2122

1718

282829

3030

292927

2728

3029

282727

2831

242322

22222421

2018

2525

2324

2524

2521

1716161514

1615

118

1820

1816

1717

1914

77777

47

1213

64

68

456

11

2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 Overall



MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64


2018 Unsealed Roads Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21


2018 business and community developmentimportance index scores

2018 Business/Community Development Importance

71

70

70

70

69

69

68

68

68

66

Regional Centres

35-49

18-34

Women

Overall

Large Rural

Interface

Men

50-64

65+

73

71

72

71

70

70

67

69

69

68

n/a

73

72

72

70

71

69

69

69

67

n/a

70

69

71

69

72

67

67

69

68

n/a

71

70

71

69

n/a

n/a

67

69

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 business and community development importance detailed percentages

21

21

22

20

20

19

25

21

21

20

20

24

22

17

40

43

43

42

45

40

42

40

38

43

45

39

37

41

31

28

27

31

27

33

25

31

31

30

30

30

34

30

5

5

4

5

5

6

5

5

7

4

4

5

5

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2018 Business/Community Development Importance

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


2018 business and community development performance index scores

2018 Business/Community Development Performance

63

62

61

61

60

60

60

59

58

56

55

Interface

18-34

Small Rural

Women

65+

Overall

35-49

Men

Large Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

59

62

65

60

61

60

59

59

59

56

58

58

63

62

60

59

60

59

59

58

56

61

63

64

61

61

61

60

59

59

60

58

54

n/a

65

n/a

63

62

62

60

60

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 business and community development performance detailed percentages

7

7

7

8

8

8

5

8

7

7

8

10

7

5

7

34

33

33

34

35

38

33

31

40

34

35

42

37

28

31

30

32

29

31

30

28

34

30

28

30

30

27

30

34

29

10

9

10

9

8

6

15

12

10

11

10

10

11

13

9

3

3

3

3

2

2

5

4

2

4

3

3

3

3

2

15

16

17

15

17

17

8

15

12

15

15

8

11

16

23

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2018 Business/Community Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10


2018 tourism developmentimportance index scores

2018 Tourism Development Importance

71

63

63

62

62

62

61

60

59

51

Regional Centres

50-64

Women

35-49

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Men

18-34

Interface

70

63

63

62

64

63

62

61

59

53

n/a

64

65

64

64

67

63

62

62

57

64

67

66

65

67

67

65

63

59

50

n/a

65

67

64

66

n/a

65

63

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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


2018 tourism development importance detailed percentages

16

16

18

19

18

8

26

15

15

16

13

18

19

14

32

34

34

36

37

23

37

33

30

35

31

32

33

34

35

34

35

32

31

37

29

36

35

34

35

34

34

36

13

12

10

10

10

26

6

12

15

11

18

13

11

11

3

3

3

3

2

5

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+%


2018 Tourism Development Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6


2018 tourism development performance index scores

2018 Tourism Development Performance

67

64

64

64

64

63

62

61

61

61

60

Small Rural

18-34

Women

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

35-49

Men

Large Rural

Interface

50-64

67

64

64

63

65

63

63

61

65

56

61

64

64

64

62

71

63

63

62

64

56

60

63

64

64

65

67

63

61

62

66

53

62

n/a

64

66

66

n/a

64

62

62

n/a

n/a

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.


2018 tourism development performance detailed percentages

12

13

13

12

13

7

14

11

20

12

13

14

12

12

12

37

34

34

35

36

38

40

35

38

35

39

42

36

33

36

26

29

27

28

28

26

28

28

23

27

25

24

27

28

27

11

9

9

9

9

11

11

11

9

12

9

12

11

12

9

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

5

2

11

12

13

13

13

15

5

12

7

10

11

7

11

11

14

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64


2018 Tourism Development Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10

DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS


Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard and data tables provided alongside this report.

2018 GENDER AND AGE profile

49%51%Men

Women

7%19%

24%22%

28%18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Gender Age

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64


2018 HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

13

9

3

3

22

26

20

3

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under living athome

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 orunder at home

Married or living with partner with children but none16 or under at home

Do not wish to answer

2018 Household Structure

%

S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9


2018 years lived in area

12

14

15

13

14

14

15

15

17

16

14

14

14

16

73

69

69

73

71

72

68

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

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

2018 Years Lived in Area

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12


2018 years lived in area

12

14

15

15

20

17

9

11

13

12

23

14

6

6

15

17

16

15

22

10

14

15

15

15

18

22

9

9

23

24

25

23

28

23

22

21

21

24

21

31

23

17

21

18

17

22

14

22

22

16

21

21

31

14

22

16

29

28

27

26

16

27

34

35

30

28

8

19

39

53

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

2018 Years Lived in Area

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart presents the last three years of data only.


2018 Home ownership

92

83

79

82

83

83

81

92

93

91

92

85

95

95

7

15

20

17

16

16

18

7

6

9

8

12

5

4

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Own Rent

2018 Own or Rent

Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental property?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 1


60

39

8

4

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

14

English only

Languages other than English

CHINESE

GREEK

VIETNAMESE

ITALIAN

ARABIC

HINDI

CROATIAN

FRENCH

GERMAN

SPANISH

OTHER

63

37

4

4

4

3

1

1

1

18

Australia

Countries other than Australia

CHINA

INDIA

UNITED KINGDOM

OTHER ASIAN

GREECE

OTHER EUROPEAN

NEW ZEALAND

OTHER

2018 languages spoken at home2018 Countries of Birth

2018 Languages Spoken

%

2018 Countries of Birth%

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4 Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3


8984

8178

7171

5951

4846

4241

2625

21202019181716

141312

988

8682

7877

6670

534748

443840

2424

201817161816

1311118868

Waste managementAppearance of public areas

Parking facilitiesLocal streets & footpaths

Recreational facilitiesSealed local roads

Art centres & librariesInforming the community

Unsealed roadsTraffic management

Community & culturalSlashing & weed control

Enforcement of local lawsEnvironmental sustainability

Community decisionsConsultation & engagementBusiness & community dev.Planning & building permits

Population growthTown planning policy

Bus/community dev./tourismFamily support services

Emergency & disaster mngtElderly support services

LobbyingDisadvantaged support serv.

Tourism development

Total household usePersonal use

%

2018 personal and household use and experience of council services Percentage results

Experience of Services

Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

APPENDIX A: FURTHER PROJECT INFORMATION


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

The survey is now conducted as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18 years or over in local councils, whereas previously it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

As part of the change to a representative resident survey, results are now weighted post survey to the known population distribution of Overall according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

Appendix A: Background and objectives

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2018 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.


Demographic

Actual survey sample

size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error

at 95% confidence

interval

Overall26814 25600 +/-0.6

Men12196 12636 +/-0.9

Women14618 12964 +/-0.8

Metropolitan6212 5600 +/-1.2

Interface2500 2400 +/-2.0

Regional Centres3201 3200 +/-1.7

Large Rural7701 7200 +/-1.1

Small Rural7200 7200 +/-1.2

18-34 years3118 6570 +/-1.8

35-49 years4999 6066 +/-1.4

50-64 years8335 5747 +/-1.1

65+ years10362 7217 +/-1.0

The sample size for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Overall was 26814. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately 26814 interviews is +/-0.6% at the 95% confidence level for results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read confidently as falling midway in the range 49.4% - 50.6%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below, based on a population of 3,471,000 people aged 18 years or over for Overall, according to ABS estimates.

Appendix A: Margins of error


In 2018, 64 of the 79 Victorian councils chose to participate in this survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting across all projects, Local Government Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use standard council groupings, as classified below. Accordingly, the council reports for the community satisfaction survey provide analysis using these standard council groupings.

Appendix A: Analysis and reportinG

Please note that councils participating in 2012-2017 vary slightly to those participating in 2018, and that council grouping classifications significantly changed for 2015. As such, comparisons to previous council group results can not be made to any period prior to 2015.

Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small RuralBanyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast Alpine

Boroondara Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw AraratBrimbank Melton Horsham Campaspe BenallaFrankston Mornington Peninsula Latrobe Colac Otway BulokeGlen Eira Whittlesea Mildura Corangamite Central Goldfields

Greater Dandenong Yarra Ranges Wangaratta East Gippsland GannawarraKingston Warrnambool Glenelg Hepburn

Knox Wodonga Golden Plains HindmarshManningham Macedon Ranges IndigoMaroondah Mitchell MansfieldMelbourne Moira Murrindindi Port Phillip Moorabool Northern Grampians

Stonnington Mount Alexander PyreneesWhitehorse Moyne Queenscliffe

Southern Grampians StrathbogieSurf Coast TowongSwan Hill West Wimmera

Wellington YarriambiackNon-participating councils: Ballarat, Bayside, Darebin, Greater Shepparton, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Loddon, Maribyrnong, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Nillumbik, South Gippsland, Wyndham, and Yarra.


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council performance on a five-point scale, for example, from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a possible response category. To facilitate ease of reporting and comparison of results over time, starting from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘% RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the ‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’ for each category, which are then summed to produce the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following example.

Appendix A: Analysis and reporting

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX

FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 60


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12 months’, based on the following scale for each performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.


SCALE CATEGORIES

% RESULT

INDEX FACTOR

INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56


Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a particular service area. In this context, index scores indicate:

a) how well council is seen to be performing in a particular service area; or

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

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

Appendix A: index score implications

INDEXSCORE

Performanceimplication

Importanceimplication

75 – 100Council is performing

very well in this service area

This service area is seen to be

extremely important


well in this service area, but there is room for

improvement


very important

50 – 60Council is performingsatisfactorily in this

service area but needs to improve


fairly important


poorlyin this service area


somewhat important


very poorlyin this service area


not that important


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

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

Where:

$1 = Index Score 1

$2 = Index Score 2

$3 = unweighted sample count 1

$4 = unweighted sample count 1

$5 = standard deviation 1

$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are significantly different.

Appendix A: index score significant difference calculation


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and demographic questions required to ensure sample representativeness, a base set of questions for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating Councils.

These core questions comprised:

Overall performance last 12 months (Overall performance)

Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy) Community consultation and engagement

(Consultation) Decisions made in the interest of the community

(Making community decisions) Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads) Contact in last 12 months (Contact) Rating of contact (Customer service) Overall council direction last 12 months (Council

direction)


Reporting of results for these core questions can always be compared against other participating councils in the council group and against all participating councils state-wide. Alternatively, some questions in the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council.


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey receives a customised report. In addition, the state government is supplied with this State-wide summary report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’ questions asked across all council areas surveyed, which is available at:

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

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


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

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


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2018 Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups, comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres, large rural and small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or lowest result across a particular demographic sub-group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported. Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an option to include or not.

Appendix A: Glossary of terms

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’, meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is significantly higher or lower than the comparison result based on a statistical significance test at the 95% confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned, however not all significantly higher or lower results are referenced in summary reporting.

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

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

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample for each council based on available age and gender proportions from ABS census information to ensure reported results are proportionate to the actual population of the council, rather than the achieved survey sample.

Contact Us:03 8685 8555

John ScalesManaging Director

Mark ZukerManaging Director

There ARE OVER

6 million peoplein victoria...

find out what they'rethinking.

Documents

2018 STATE-WIDE RESEARCH REPORT - Local Government · J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 – State-wide This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing