Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2021 Local
Government
Community
Satisfaction Survey
State-wide Report
Coordinated by the Department of Jobs,
Precincts and Regions on behalf of
Victorian councils
Contents
2
Background and objectives 4
Key findings and recommendations 5
Detailed findings 13
Overall performance 14
Customer service 31
Communication 40
Council direction 45
Individual service areas 52
Community consultation and engagement 53
Lobbying on behalf of the community 57
Decisions made in the interest of the
community
61
Condition of sealed local roads 65
Informing the community 69
Condition of local streets and footpaths 73
Traffic management 77
Parking facilities 81
Enforcement of local laws 85
Family support services 89
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Elderly support services 93
Disadvantaged support services 97
Recreational facilities 101
Appearance of public areas 105
Art centres and libraries 109
Community and cultural activities 113
Waste management 117
Business and community development and
tourism
121
General town planning policy 125
Planning and building permits 129
Environmental sustainability 133
Emergency and disaster management 137
Planning for population growth 141
Roadside slashing and weed control 145
Maintenance of unsealed roads 149
Business and community development 153
Tourism development 157
Response to Covid-19 161
Contents
3
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Detailed demographics 165
Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error
and significant differences
173
Appendix B: Further project information 178
Background and objectives
4
The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey
(CSS) creates a vital interface between councils
and their communities.
Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local
people about the place they live, work and play and
provides confidence for councils in their efforts
and abilities.
Now in its twenty-second year, this survey provides
insight into the community’s views on:
• councils’ overall performance, with benchmarking
against State-wide and council group results
• value for money in services and infrastructure
• community consultation and engagement
• decisions made in the interest of the community
• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities,
services and
• overall council direction.
When coupled with previous data, the survey provides
a reliable historical source of the community’s views
since 1998. A selection of results from the last ten
years shows that councils in Victoria continue to
provide services that meet the public’s expectations.
Serving Victoria for 22 years
Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-
wide report which contains all of the aggregated
results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 22 years of
results, the CSS offers councils a long-term measure of
how they are performing – essential for councils that
work over the long term to provide valuable services
and infrastructure to their communities.
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.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Key findings and
recommendations
5
State-wide performance – at a glance
6Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole
number, which may result in differences of +/-1% in the importance and performance scores and the net differential scores.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.
Metropolitan 67
State-wide 61
Interface 59
81
45
79
51
81
56
-36-27 -25
73
73
73
Top 3 performing areas
Top 3 areas for improvement
Unsealed roads Slashing & weed
control
Community
decisions
PerformanceImportance Net differential
Regional Centres 60
Large Rural 58 Small Rural 60
Art centres and libraries
Appearance of public areas
COVID-19 response
Summary of core measures
7
Index scores
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
71
71
7270 69 69
70 71 70 70
5555 54
53
53
56
54
57
60 60 61 60 59 59 59 60
58
61
57 57
5756
5455 55
56 5556
57
5554
54 5455
53
56
72
71
7372
7071
7068
65
69
52 53 53 5351
53 52 5351
53
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Waste
management
Sealed
local
roads
Consultation &
engagement
Customer
service
Overall
council
direction
Overall
performance
Community
decisions
Summary of core measures
8
Core measures summary results (%)
11
9
8
13
23
32
39
30
32
34
42
35
34
32
32
28
20
17
10
15
13
15
8
8
4
6
6
9
4
6
2
8
9
1
3
1
Overall performance
Consultation & engagement
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Waste management
Customer service
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
18 63 13 5Overall council direction
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Services State-wide
2021
State-wide
2020
Highest
score
Lowest
score
Overall performance 61 58 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Value for money 54 -Aged 18-34 or 65+
yearsAged 50-64 years
Overall council direction 53 51 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Customer service 70 70Women, Aged 65+
years
Men, Aged 35-49
years
COVID-19 response 73 -Aged 65+ years,
WomenAged 50-64 years
Appearance of public areas 73 72 Aged 18-34 years Aged 35-64 years
Art centres & libraries 73 74 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years
Emergency & disaster mngt 71 68Aged 18-34 or 65+
years, WomenAged 50-64 years
Recreational facilities 71 70 Aged 65+ years Aged 35-49 years
Elderly support services 69 68 Aged 65+ years Aged 35-49 years
Waste management 69 65 Aged 65+ years Aged 35-64 years
Summary of State-wide performance
9Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2020 result at the 95% confidence interval.
Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Services State-wide
2021
State-wide
2020
Highest
score
Lowest
score
Family support services 66 66 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years
Community & cultural 65 68 Aged 65+ years Aged 18-34 years
Enforcement of local laws 64 63 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Disadvantaged support serv. 63 60Men, Aged 65+
years
Women, Aged 35-49
years
Environmental sustainability 62 60Aged 18-34 or 65+
years, MenAged 50-64 years
Tourism development 62 62Aged 18-34 or 65+
yearsAged 35-49 years
Bus/community dev./tourism 61 59 Aged 65+ years Aged 35-64 years
Informing the community 60 59 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Business & community dev. 60 59 Aged 18-34 years Aged 35-64 years
Local streets & footpaths 59 58 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Traffic management 59 58 Aged 18-34 years Aged 35-64 years
Summary of State-wide performance
10Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2020 result at the 95% confidence interval.
Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences..
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Services State-wide
2021
State-wide
2020
Highest
score
Lowest
score
Parking facilities 58 55 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50+ years
Sealed local roads 57 54Aged 18-34 or 65+
yearsAged 50-64 years
Community decisions 56 53 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Consultation & engagement 56 55 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Town planning policy 55 54 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Lobbying 55 53 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Population growth 53 51 Aged 18-34 years Aged 35-49 years
Planning & building permits 51 51 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Slashing & weed control 51 49 Aged 18-34 years Aged 50-64 years
Unsealed roads 45 44 Aged 65+ years Aged 50-64 years
Summary of State-wide performance
11Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2020 result at the 95% confidence interval.
Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences..
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Focus areas for the next 12 months
12
The appearance of public areas and arts centres and libraries remain the best performing
areas for Victorian councils. Perceptions of performance on most service areas and of
overall council performance have improved in the past year after declines in 2020 – most
markedly on waste management. Performance on community and cultural activities has
declined for all council groups amid the long COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions on
public gatherings, although the COVID-19 response is highly rated.
Overview
Victorian Councils should focus on maintaining and improving performance in the
individual service areas that most influence perceptions of overall performance. State-
wide, these remain: council decisions made in the interest of the community, town
planning, and the condition of sealed local roads (excluding those managed by VicRoads).
These are currently among councils’ lower performing areas State-wide.
Key influences on
perceptions of overall
performance
Metropolitan councils continue to perform most strongly, ahead of those in the Regional,
Rural and Interface council groups. Across the individual service areas – Metropolitan
councils most often rate above the State-wide average, Regional Centre councils most
often rate in line with the State-wide average, Interface and Large Rural councils most
often rate below the State-wide average, and rated performance of Small Rural councils is
variable.
Area grouping
comparisons
Perceptions of councils’ performance remain high for customer service and have improved
on other core measures, recovering to 2019 levels (or better) after declines in 2020.
Councils can help shore up positive community perceptions over the next 12 months by
continuing to deliver good customer service and waste management services, offering
greater consultation and transparency in their decision making, and maintaining and
repairing local roads.
Progress on core
measures
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
DETAILED
FINDINGS
13
Overall
performance
14
The overall performance index score of 61 for councils State-
wide represents a significant three-point increase on the 2020
result. Recovering from a two-point decline last year, overall
performance is now back to its highest level, last achieved in
2014. Perceptions of councils’ overall performance have
improved across all demographic and council groups.
The Metropolitan council group (group index score of 67)
continues to rate significantly higher than the State-wide
average, at the 95% confidence level. In contrast, other
council groups rate significantly lower than the State-wide
average, at 58 index points for the Large Rural group, a
slightly better 59 for the Interface group and 60 for both the
Regional Centres and Small Rural groups.
Demographically, Victoria’s youngest (18 to 34 years) and
oldest (65+ years) residents remain most positive about their
council’s performance (index scores of 64 and 62 respectively
– both significantly higher than the State-wide average). This
contrasts with the two middle age cohorts (35 to 49 and 50 to
64 years) who continue to rate their council’s performance
significantly lower than the State-wide average (index scores
of 59 and 57 respectively).
State-wide, almost four in ten residents (39%) rate the value
for money received from their council in infrastructure and
services provided as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ – many more than
those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ (23%). A further 34%
sit mid-scale, rating value for money as ‘average’.
Overall performance
15
Overall performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.
State-wide
61
Metropolitan rate overall
performance highest (67)
Aged 50-64 years rate overall
performance lowest (57)
Metropolitan 67
Interface 59Regional Centres 60
Large Rural 58 Small Rural 60
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
66
61
59
59
58
57
56
56
56
56
55
54
67
63
61
60
60
59
58
58
61
58
56
56
65
62
59
59
59
58
58
56
60
57
56
54
64
62
60
60
59
58
57
58
60
57
54
55
66
62
59
60
59
58
55
57
61
57
54
55
67
64
61
61
60
59
58
59
62
59
56
57
n/a
65
62
62
61
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
57
n/a
65
61
61
60
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
57
n/a
65
61
61
60
59
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
n/a
57
Overall performance
2021 overall performance (index scores)
67p
64p
62p
62p
61
60q
60q
60q
59q
59q
58q
57q
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Interface
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
16
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Overall performance
17
2021 overall performance (%)
11
9
10
9
9
9
10
11
10
9
15
9
12
8
10
10
12
10
9
9
14
39
37
39
37
36
36
39
40
40
40
47
38
35
36
38
39
39
48
39
34
36
34
36
35
36
37
36
35
35
35
36
29
36
37
37
34
34
34
32
33
37
35
10
11
10
11
10
11
10
9
10
9
6
10
10
11
11
10
9
7
12
12
9
4
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
2
5
5
6
4
5
4
3
6
6
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Value for money in services and infrastructure
2021 value for money (index scores)
62p
57p
57p
55p
55p
54
54
53q
52q
51q
50q
50q
Metropolitan
65+
18-34
Women
Regional Centres
Interface
Overall
Men
Small Rural
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
18
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q3b. How would you rate Council at providing good value for money in infrastructure and services provided to your community?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Value for money in services and infrastructure
19Q3b. How would you rate Council at providing good value for money in infrastructure and services provided to your community?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
2021 value for money (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
8
12
8
9
6
7
8
8
8
7
6
11
31
39
32
32
27
29
30
32
37
29
27
31
34
32
34
33
34
35
33
34
33
33
35
34
15
9
14
15
18
17
16
14
12
17
19
14
8
3
9
8
11
9
9
7
7
11
10
6
4
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
2021 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
The top three performing service areas State-wide in 2021,
each with an index score of 73, are councils’ COVID-19
response, the appearance of public areas (up one point
from 2020) and art centres and libraries (down one point).
The COVID-19 response of Small and Large Rural council
groups is rated above the State-wide average, while the
Interface group rates below average. The Metropolitan and
Regional Centres groups rate equal to the State-wide result
for their COVID-19 response, but rate higher than average
on the appearance of public areas. The Regional Centres
group also performs higher on arts centres and libraries.
Other top performing service areas State-wide, each with an
index score of 71, are emergency and disaster management
(up three points) and recreational facilities (up one point).
Further to these results, 10% of residents volunteer parks
and gardens as the best aspect of their local council (the
leading response, alongside customer service) and 7%
mention recreational and sporting facilities.
State-wide, performance ratings for most service areas
improved in 2021, after declining in 2020, with the greatest
increase being on waste management (index score of 69,
up four points). Perceptions of waste management improved
across all council groups. Other notable increases were on
disadvantaged support services, parking facilities, sealed
local roads and community decisions – each up three
points.
Top performing service areas
20
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
COVID-19 response, the appearance of
public areas and art centres and
libraries (index score of 73 each) are the
areas where councils State-wide
performed best in 2021.
Councils State-wide continue to rate lowest on unsealed
road maintenance, however, there has been some
improvement from 2020 (index score of 45, up one point).
Similarly, performance ratings of roadside slashing and
weed control – another weaker service area – have also
increased (index score of 51, up two points).
While performance on sealed local roads has improved
across council groups after a decline in 2020, this also
remains the most frequently-cited Council area as in need
of improvement (13%).
In other results, performance ratings in some service
areas have shown no improvement or declined further
since 2020. Council performance on community and
cultural activities has declined three points to an index
score of 65, following the protracted COVID-19 lockdowns
and restrictions on public gatherings in 2020. While still a
mid-range rating overall, it is the lowest recorded for this
service area, having declined across all council groups.
Perceptions of performance on planning and building
permits, tourism development and family support services
(index scores of 51, 62 and 66 respectively) are
unchanged this year, after declining in 2020. Since last
year, performance ratings on family support services have
declined among the Metropolitan council group, while
tourism development ratings declined among the Regional
Centres group.
Low performing service areas
21
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Councils State-wide continue to rate
lowest in the area of unsealed roads
(index score of 45).
73
73
73
71
71
69
69
66
65
64
63
62
62
61
60
60
59
59
58
57
56
56
55
55
53
51
51
45
COVID-19 response
Appearance of public areas
Art centres & libraries
Emergency & disaster mngt
Recreational facilities
Elderly support services
Waste management
Family support services
Community & cultural
Enforcement of local laws
Disadvantaged support serv.
Environmental sustainability
Tourism development
Bus/community dev./tourism
Informing the community
Business & community dev.
Local streets & footpaths
Traffic management
Parking facilities
Sealed local roads
Community decisions
Consultation & engagement
Town planning policy
Lobbying
Population growth
Planning & building permits
Slashing & weed control
Unsealed roads
Individual service area performance
2021 individual service area performance (index scores)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
22
n/a
72
74
68
70
68
65
66
68
63
60
60
62
59
59
59
58
58
55
54
53
55
54
53
51
51
49
44
n/a
72
74
72
70
68
68
67
69
64
62
62
63
61
60
61
59
58
56
56
55
56
55
54
52
52
56
44
n/a
71
74
71
69
68
70
66
69
64
61
63
63
60
59
60
58
57
56
53
54
55
54
54
52
52
55
43
n/a
71
73
70
70
68
71
67
69
64
61
64
63
61
59
60
57
59
55
53
54
55
53
54
52
51
53
44
n/a
71
72
69
69
68
70
66
69
63
61
63
63
60
59
60
57
59
56
54
54
54
52
53
51
50
56
43
n/a
72
73
70
70
69
72
67
69
66
62
64
63
61
61
60
58
60
57
55
55
56
54
55
54
54
55
45
n/a
72
75
71
71
70
73
68
70
66
64
64
64
62
62
62
58
60
57
55
57
57
55
56
54
53
55
45
n/a
71
73
70
70
69
71
67
69
65
62
64
n/a
62
61
n/a
58
60
57
n/a
n/a
57
55
55
54
55
56
44
n/a
71
73
70
70
69
72
67
68
65
63
64
n/a
62
60
n/a
57
58
56
n/a
n/a
57
54
55
52
54
61
46
2020 2019 2018 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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Individual service area performance
23
2021 individual service area performance (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
27
27
22
19
23
16
23
11
13
12
8
11
11
11
13
8
15
10
10
13
8
9
6
6
7
6
10
5
39
46
42
39
43
32
42
31
38
39
27
36
35
33
36
33
35
37
35
34
32
30
28
25
26
23
28
22
18
19
20
20
22
20
20
21
28
26
22
31
30
32
31
34
28
31
32
28
32
32
30
32
30
27
29
31
4
5
3
4
6
5
8
5
7
7
5
9
9
10
12
9
14
13
14
15
13
15
12
12
16
13
19
21
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
5
3
7
5
6
9
6
6
5
5
7
8
12
15
9
1
13
16
4
26
3
31
13
12
36
11
11
12
3
14
2
3
3
1
9
8
18
19
15
23
2
6
COVID-19 response
Appearance of public areas
Art centres & libraries
Emergency & disaster mngt
Recreational facilities
Elderly support services
Waste management
Family support services
Community & cultural
Enforcement of local laws
Disadvantaged support serv.
Environmental sustainability
Tourism development
Bus/community dev./tourism
Informing the community
Business & community dev.
Local streets & footpaths
Traffic management
Parking facilities
Sealed local roads
Community decisions
Consultation & engagement
Town planning policy
Lobbying
Population growth
Planning & building permits
Slashing & weed control
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: 66
82
80
80
80
80
79
78
78
75
74
75
76
74
74
74
72
72
73
71
71
n/a
69
67
70
68
65
62
62
81
80
80
81
80
79
77
74
75
74
74
77
74
73
74
73
72
73
71
71
n/a
69
65
71
67
65
61
59
81
79
80
81
80
80
78
73
75
72
74
77
74
74
73
73
73
74
71
71
n/a
69
66
71
68
65
61
61
79
78
79
80
79
78
77
74
74
71
73
76
74
74
72
72
72
72
72
70
n/a
70
67
71
69
64
61
62
80
78
79
80
80
78
77
73
76
73
73
76
75
74
73
73
73
72
71
70
n/a
70
67
70
69
66
62
63
79
79
78
80
80
76
77
73
75
73
73
75
74
73
73
72
72
71
71
70
n/a
69
67
71
69
65
62
65
79
79
78
80
79
77
77
75
75
72
72
75
74
73
73
72
72
70
71
70
n/a
69
67
70
70
66
62
65
79
79
81
80
n/a
n/a
78
74
75
73
73
75
73
74
72
73
72
72
71
71
n/a
n/a
67
71
70
66
62
n/a
78
80
80
80
n/a
n/a
77
71
75
73
73
75
73
73
71
72
72
73
71
71
n/a
n/a
66
70
70
66
62
n/a
82
82
81
81
81
79
79
79
77
77
76
76
75
75
74
74
74
73
73
72
71
70
70
70
69
67
64
63
Waste management
Elderly support services
Unsealed roads
Emergency & disaster mngt
Community decisions
Sealed local roads
Local streets & footpaths
Slashing & weed control
Informing the community
Disadvantaged support serv.
Family support services
Population growth
Consultation & engagement
Appearance of public areas
Environmental sustainability
Town planning policy
Recreational facilities
Traffic management
Planning & building permits
Parking facilities
COVID-19 response
Business & community dev.
Bus/community dev./tourism
Enforcement of local laws
Lobbying
Art centres & libraries
Community & cultural
Tourism development
Individual service area importance
2021 individual service area importance (index scores)
24
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Individual service area importance
2021 individual service area importance (%)
44
43
45
42
47
38
38
40
35
34
28
34
37
32
26
35
29
29
28
27
21
33
25
24
24
19
15
17
42
42
36
40
34
43
42
38
41
41
47
40
36
41
46
37
40
40
39
39
44
32
38
39
39
40
37
35
12
12
15
14
13
16
17
18
19
19
23
20
19
22
24
21
25
23
24
26
28
20
28
29
27
31
36
33
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
5
4
3
4
6
4
9
6
6
7
8
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
Waste management
Elderly support services
Unsealed roads
Community decisions
Emergency & disaster mngt
Sealed local roads
Local streets & footpaths
Slashing & weed control
Informing the community
Disadvantaged support serv.
Appearance of public areas
Family support services
Population growth
Consultation & engagement
Recreational facilities
Environmental sustainability
Traffic management
Town planning policy
Planning & building permits
Parking facilities
Business & community dev.
COVID-19 response
Enforcement of local laws
Bus/community dev./tourism
Lobbying
Art centres & libraries
Community & cultural
Tourism development
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
25Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
81
79
81
76
79
73
75
79
74
77
73
69
72
82
77
82
74
76
70
81
Unsealed roads
Slashing & weed control
Community decisions
Population growth
Sealed local roads
Planning & building permits
Consultation & engagement
Local streets & footpaths
Town planning policy
Informing the community
Traffic management
Lobbying
Parking facilities
Waste management
Disadvantaged support serv.
Elderly support services
Environmental sustainability
Family support services
Business & community dev.
Emergency & disaster mngt
45
51
56
53
57
51
56
59
55
60
59
55
58
69
63
69
62
66
60
71
Individual service areas importance vs performance
26Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole
number, which may result in differences of +/-1% in the importance and performance scores and the net differential scores.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential
Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,
suggesting further investigation is necessary.
-36
-27
-25
-23
-23
-21
-20
-20
-19
-16
-15
-14
-14
-14
-13
-13
-12
-10
-10
-10
The individual service area that has the strongest
influence on the overall performance rating for Councils
State-wide (based on regression analysis) is:
• Decisions made in the interest of the community.
Good communication and transparency with residents
about decisions made in their community’s interest
provides the greatest opportunity to drive up overall
opinion of Council performance.
Other key service areas with a positive influence on
overall performance include:
• Town planning
• The condition of sealed local roads, excluding
VicRoads
• The appearance of public areas
• Business, community development and tourism
• Family support services
• Recreational facilities.
Looking at these service areas, the appearance of
public areas has a high performance index and a
moderate influence on overall performance ratings.
Councils State-wide currently perform very well in this
area (index score of 73) and should continue to attend
to their public areas to maintain this positive result.
Recreational facilities and family support services also
have relatively high performance ratings (index scores
of 71 and 66 respectively) and some influence on
overall performance. Councils should also seek to
maintain standards here to help shore up positive
perceptions of these service areas, as well as Council
performance overall.
However, there is greater work to be done in service
areas that have a moderate influence on overall
perceptions but perform less well, such as town
planning and the condition of sealed local roads (index
score of 55 and 57 respectively). In addition, while
currently a lesser influence on the overall performance
rating, business, community development and tourism
sits only mid-range on performance, relative to other
service areas (index score of 61).
Working to improve perceptions of Council processes
and decisions around town planning and other
community development issues, as well as attending to
resident concerns about sealed local roads, can also
help to improve overall performance ratings for
Councils State-wide.
Influences on perceptions of overall performance
27
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
We use regression analysis to investigate the influence
of individual service areas, such as decisions made in
the community interest, the condition of sealed local
roads, etc. (the independent variables), on respondent
perceptions of overall Council performance (the
dependent variable).
Prior to running this analysis, the 28 individual service
areas evaluated in this survey were tested for
normality, linearity and multicollinearity. Because some
of the data possessed some or more of these features,
the 28 service area items were analysed using
Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key
factors or ‘themes’ to emerge. Seven key factors /
themes emerged around:
• Informing, consulting, deciding, lobbying for the
community
• Local roads and streets
• Planning – general administration, managing growth
• Maintenance, overall management of public areas
• Community facilities, activities
• Business, community development, tourism
• Support services.
Regression analysis was then performed using the
most representative individual service area from each
of these seven factors / themes as our independent
variables.
In the following chart, the horizontal axis represents the
Council performance index for each key service area –
community decisions, town planning, sealed roads,
public areas, business, community development and
tourism, family support services and recreational
facilities. Service areas appearing on the right-side of
the chart have a higher performance index than those
on the left (i.e. council performance is rated more highly
by residents).
The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta
Coefficient from the multiple regression performed. This
measures the contribution of each service area to the
model. Service areas near the top of the chart have a
greater positive effect on overall performance ratings
than service areas located closer to the axis.
Regression analysis explained
28
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Influence on overall performance: key service areas
29
The 28 performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine factors / ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions.
Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on
these seven items against overall performance ratings. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.534 and
adjusted R-square value of 0.534, 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 = 589.16.
2021 regression analysis (key service areas)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Family support services
Recreational facilities
The appearance of public areas
Business, community dev.
and tourism
Community decisions
Condition of sealed local roads
Town planning
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor
Gre
ate
r p
ositiv
e in
flu
en
ce
on
Ove
rall
Pe
rfo
rma
nce
Gre
ate
r n
eg
ative
in
flu
en
ce
on
Ove
rall
Pe
rfo
rma
nce
Focus on these areas satisfactorily to ensure
negative perceptions do not have an overly
negative impact on general perceptions of
Council. Improvements will help to increase
ratings of overall Council performance.
Should remain a focus as improvements will
have a stronger influence and help drive up
positive opinion of overall Council performance.
Key positive influence on overall rating
and should remain a focus – but
currently performing ‘well’ here.
Improvements will have a moderate
influence on overall perceptions.
13
10
8
8
5
4
4
4
4
7
Sealed Road Maintenance
Community Consultation
Waste Management
Communication
Rates - Too Expensive
Financial Management
Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape
Unsealed Road Maintenance
Footpaths/Walking Tracks
Nothing
10
10
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Parks and Gardens
Customer Service
Recreational/Sporting Facilities
Public Areas
Road/Street Maintenance
Waste Management
Generally Good - Overall/No Complaints
Community Support Services
Location
CommunityEngagement/Involvement/Communication
Best things about Council and areas for improvement
30
Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about Counci? 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: 28
Q17. What does Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 45
2021 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
2021 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -
Customer
service
31
Customer service
The customer service index of councils State-wide is
70 in 2021, unchanged from 2020 but one-point lower
than 2019.
Council group index scores are in line with last year.
The Metropolitan council group (index score of 74)
continues to perform better on customer service than
the State-wide average, while the Interface and Large
and Small Rural groups perform lower than average,
and the Regional Centres group performs in line with
the State-wide result.
State-wide, customer service ratings remain high for
the main methods of contact, being telephone, email
and in person (index scores of 72, 66 and 75
respectively).
Although used by a smaller number of residents,
customer service delivered via council websites also
rates highly, with an index score of 75. Importantly, this
is a five-point increase from last year, recovering most
of the six-point decline recorded in 2020.
State-wide, two thirds of residents (67%) provide a
positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’,
including 32% of residents who rate councils’ customer
service as ‘very good’. This is similar to 2020 (67% and
31% respectively).
Contact with council and customer service
32
Contact with Council
Six in ten (61%) households State-wide have had contact
with their council in the last 12 months, a lower rate of
contact than 2020 (64%). Residents aged 35 to 49 years
(70%) and 50 to 64 years (66%) continue to have more
contact with Council than those aged 65+ years (57%)
and 18 to 34 years (55%). Telephone (37%) remains the
main method of contact however the use of email and
Council websites continues to grow. In person contact
has declined, due in part to COVID-19 restrictions.
Among those who have had contact
with their council, two-thirds
continue to provide a positive
customer service rating.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
33
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: 66
2021 contact with council (%)
Have had contact
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
61 60 61 6159 59
62 6264
61
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Contact with council
71
68
67
65
65
64
61
62
62
62
60
58
69
68
64
63
64
62
59
62
61
60
58
55
68
66
64
63
64
62
60
61
60
59
59
55
66
63
63
60
60
59
59
57
58
56
56
52
65
62
61
59
60
58
58
57
58
56
56
52
69
63
64
61
58
61
60
59
60
59
57
55
69
64
n/a
63
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
57
56
66
64
n/a
62
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
56
55
69
65
n/a
64
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
58
56
Contact with council
34
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: 66 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.
2021 contact with council (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
70
66
63
63
62
61
61
61
60
59
57
55
35-49
50-64
Small Rural
Women
Interface
Overall
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Men
Regional Centres
65+
18-34
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
74
72
72
70
70
70
70
68
70
68
68
68
76
73
73
72
71
71
70
69
70
69
69
69
72
72
72
72
69
70
69
68
69
70
67
68
71
72
71
72
69
69
69
68
68
69
66
66
73
72
71
70
68
69
69
69
69
70
67
67
73
72
72
71
69
70
70
70
70
72
67
68
n/a
73
74
n/a
71
72
n/a
70
71
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
72
74
n/a
70
71
n/a
70
71
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
73
74
n/a
70
71
n/a
70
70
n/a
n/a
69
Customer service rating
35
2021 customer service rating (index scores)
74p
72p
72p
71
70
70
69q
69
68q
68q
68q
68q
Metropolitan
Women
65+
Regional Centres
18-34
Overall
Small Rural
50-64
35-49
Interface
Large Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind
we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.
Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.
Councils asked state-wide: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Customer service rating
36
2021 customer service rating (%)
32
31
33
31
30
30
31
32
31
31
37
30
34
28
31
29
35
30
30
32
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
38
38
37
34
35
35
35
36
36
34
39
36
33
34
17
17
17
18
18
17
17
16
17
17
16
16
17
19
16
18
16
17
18
18
16
8
7
7
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
7
9
7
8
9
9
7
7
8
9
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
8
6
7
7
7
5
5
8
7
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in
mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.
Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.
Councils asked state-wide: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Method of contact with council
2021 method of contact (%)
3637
39
35
32 32
3635
3637
3429
30
32
2928
30
2829
21
13
1415
13
1314
18 18
21
23
18
16 16
14
12
11
13
11
13
12
1211
12
9
88
10
911
13
12 2
3 34
5 5
7 7
1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 34
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
37Q5a. 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: 39
Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%
By EmailBy Text
Message
By Social
Media
In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
75
75
70
72
70
66
64
70
76
76
73
71
66
64
57
74
75
71
72
64
65
84
76
75
73
69
65
61
79
74
76
71
74
69
62
79
77
75
73
66
68
66
82
77
74
75
73
70
69
61
74
73
72
75
68
68
68
75
75
73
79
73
69
Customer service rating by method of last contact
38
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service?
Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.
Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.
Councils asked state-wide: 27
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
2021 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
76
75
75
72
70
66
63
By text message
In person
Via website
By telephone
By social media
By email
In writing
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Customer service rating by method of last contact
2021 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)
43
42
32
37
21
26
15
29
30
41
34
47
35
41
19
15
18
15
21
20
23
4
6
5
7
3
10
10
4
6
2
6
4
8
6
2
2
3
1
3
1
4
By text message
In person
Via website
By telephone
By social media
By email
In writing
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
39
Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service?
Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received.
Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months.
Councils asked state-wide: 27
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Communication
40
State-wide, the preferred form of communication from
Councils remains newsletters sent via mail (29%) or email
(24%). After declining over 2016 to 2019, preference for
mailed newsletters appears to have plateaued, sitting at
just under three in ten for the last three years.
Newsletters are followed by a preference for social media
(15%), which has increased steadily by one point per year
since 2019, driven by increased interest among younger
residents.
Overall, communication preferences are all within one
percentage point of 2020 results.
• Preferred forms of communication among under 50s
remain mixed and include newsletters sent via email
(25%) or mail (24%), as well as social media (25%).
There is also increased interest in receiving text
messages (11% up from 8%).
• The preferred form of communication among over 50s
remains newsletters sent via mail (34%). However,
almost one in four prefer newsletters via email (24%),
and there remains some interest in advertising (15%) or
newsletter inserts (12%) in local newspapers.
Simply putting information on a council website remains
the least preferred form of communication, overall and
among under and over 50s (2% overall and for both
groups).
Communication
41
Newsletters remain the preferred
method of communication from
councils, but social media also
appeals to younger residents
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Best form of communication
42
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the
following is the BEST way to communicate with you?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35
Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
2021 best form of communication (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
42
39 39 39 39
3432
2829 29
1819
2122
2425
26
25
2524
18 18
1716
1415
1413
12 1115 1514
1513
12 1211
9
9
23 3 3
45
85
67
2 2 2 2 23
2 2 2 2
1314
15
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Council
Website
Text
MessageCouncil
Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Advertising in
a Local
Newspaper
Social
Media
Best form of communication: under 50s
43
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the
following is the BEST way to communicate with you?.
Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 35
Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
2021 under 50s best form of communication (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council
Website
Text
MessageCouncil
Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Advertising in
a Local
Newspaper
Social
Media
3937
3635
37
3230
2525
2421 21
2425
2728
28
26 2625
1819
1615
1213
119
76
14 14 1413 10 10
9
65
43
5 5 5 58
12
8
8
11
3
2 2
3 34
3 2 22
2224
25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Best form of communication: over 50s
44
Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the
following is the BEST way to communicate with you?
Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 35
Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.
2021 over 50s best form of communication (%)
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council
Website
Text
MessageCouncil
Newsletter as
Local Paper Insert
Council
Newsletter
via Mail
Council
Newsletter
via Email
Advertising in
a Local
Newspaper
Social
Media
46
4243
4241
37
3331
34 34
1516
18 18
21 21
2524
2324
18 18 1817
1618
17 1716
1516
17
15
18
15 15 15 1512
12
1 1 1
1
23
42 3
31 1 1 2
2 2 2
2
2 2
46
5
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Council direction
45
Over the last 12 months, 63% of residents State-wide
believe the direction of their council’s overall
performance has stayed the same, up two points from
2020.
• 18% believe the direction has improved in the last 12
months (unchanged from 2020).
• 13% believe it has deteriorated, down three points
from 2020.
• The most satisfied with their council’s direction are
residents aged 18 to 34 years and those in the
Metropolitan council group.
• The least satisfied with their council’s direction are
those aged 50 to 64 years, 35 to 49 years and
residents in the Interface council group.
All demographic and council groups increased their
index score on this measure in 2021, after a decline in
2020, with those aged 35 to 49 years (index score of
50, up one point) the only group not to record a
statistically significant increase.
Council direction
46
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
More rate council performance as
improved since last year than as
deteriorated
Overall council direction last 12 months
47
2021 overall council direction (index scores)
56p
55p
54p
54
53
53
53
52q
51q
50q
50q
49q
18-34
Metropolitan
65+
Regional Centres
Women
Overall
Small Rural
Men
Large Rural
Interface
35-49
50-64
55
54
51
50
52
51
50
50
50
48
49
47
57
55
53
52
54
53
53
52
51
54
50
50
57
54
52
53
53
52
50
51
52
53
50
48
56
54
54
55
54
53
52
52
52
53
51
50
56
55
51
51
52
51
50
51
48
54
49
48
58
56
53
53
55
53
53
52
51
54
51
51
57
n/a
54
n/a
55
53
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
51
50
57
n/a
55
n/a
54
53
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
51
50
56
n/a
53
n/a
52
52
n/a
51
n/a
n/a
49
48
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Overall council direction last 12 months
2021 overall council direction (%)
18
18
19
19
19
18
20
20
19
18
19
16
22
16
19
18
19
20
16
15
20
63
61
62
60
62
62
63
63
63
64
66
64
59
65
62
64
63
68
63
63
60
13
16
14
15
13
15
13
13
13
15
9
15
15
15
14
14
12
8
16
17
13
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
6
6
5
4
5
4
6
4
4
5
6
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say
48Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Room for improvement in services
2021 room for improvement in services (%)
47
49
47
44
46
40
47
41
46
47
46
51
45
50
43
60
49
43
44
42
45
45
42
48
44
50
46
45
44
42
45
42
49
35
44
46
6
5
5
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
4
6
5
9
4
4
7
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say
49Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Council’s overall performance?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Right / wrong direction
50
2021 right / wrong direction (%)
18
17
20
17
18
20
20
21
19
18
20
12
17
18
21
18
19
14
17
17
24
51
46
47
47
47
48
49
52
50
49
55
49
59
50
46
51
51
61
49
44
48
10
13
11
14
12
9
10
9
10
11
7
15
9
12
10
10
11
11
11
11
8
10
14
11
11
10
9
10
8
10
12
7
13
5
10
12
12
7
7
14
14
6
11
10
11
11
13
14
11
10
10
10
11
12
9
11
12
10
12
7
10
13
14
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction
Definitely wrong direction Can't say
Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Rates / services trade-off
51
2021 rates / services trade-off (%)
8
9
10
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
9
8
7
7
9
9
7
10
8
7
8
22
24
23
23
21
21
23
25
25
29
23
17
22
22
23
22
22
25
22
22
19
23
24
22
24
23
22
22
24
22
22
23
26
26
22
20
22
24
28
23
21
20
25
25
27
24
27
28
26
23
24
22
22
27
28
24
27
27
24
21
25
28
27
22
19
18
19
20
19
18
17
18
16
22
23
16
25
21
21
24
17
22
24
26
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts
Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say
Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council
services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Individual service
areas
52
Community consultation and engagement importance
53
2021 consultation and engagement importance (index scores)
78
76
76
76
76
75
75
74
72
72
72
68
77
76
75
75
76
75
76
74
71
71
70
68
77
76
76
76
74
75
75
74
72
72
70
68
78
76
75
75
75
75
76
74
72
72
72
67
78
77
76
76
77
76
75
75
73
73
75
72
78
76
75
75
76
76
74
74
72
72
72
68
77
76
n/a
74
n/a
76
n/a
74
71
n/a
n/a
68
77
75
n/a
74
n/a
74
n/a
73
71
n/a
n/a
67
77
75
n/a
73
n/a
75
n/a
73
71
n/a
n/a
68
79p
78p
77p
77p
77p
76p
76
75
73q
73q
72q
69q
50-64
Women
Large Rural
65+
Small Rural
35-49
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
Metropolitan
Interface
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 29
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community consultation and engagement importance
54
2021 consultation and engagement importance (%)
32
29
29
30
29
32
29
28
27
27
27
26
33
36
34
28
36
22
34
41
34
41
42
41
40
41
41
42
41
43
43
41
41
42
39
41
40
41
39
41
38
43
22
23
24
24
24
22
24
25
25
25
25
27
22
20
20
25
20
32
21
17
18
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
4
2
5
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community consultation and engagement performance
55
2021 consultation and engagement performance (index scores)
57
58
56
54
55
55
54
51
54
54
53
51
58
58
56
56
56
56
55
54
55
54
55
52
58
57
56
54
55
55
54
55
55
54
56
51
58
57
56
55
55
55
53
54
53
52
53
52
57
58
56
55
55
54
53
52
54
52
55
51
59
58
57
56
56
56
54
53
54
54
57
53
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
56
n/a
56
n/a
n/a
54
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
56
n/a
56
n/a
n/a
54
60
n/a
58
n/a
58
57
56
n/a
55
n/a
n/a
54
59p
59p
56
56
56
56
55q
54q
54q
54q
53q
52q
18-34
Metropolitan
Women
Small Rural
65+
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
Large Rural
Interface
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community consultation and engagement performance
56
2021 consultation and engagement performance (%)
9
8
9
8
7
8
7
8
8
8
10
7
8
8
10
8
9
8
8
8
10
30
30
30
30
29
29
31
32
32
33
32
28
30
29
31
31
30
36
29
27
29
32
32
31
32
32
32
32
32
34
33
32
31
34
33
30
32
32
34
32
33
30
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
13
13
13
12
15
14
16
15
15
14
12
16
18
15
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
5
5
5
4
8
8
7
6
7
6
4
8
8
6
8
8
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
8
11
11
7
8
7
7
9
7
7
7
10
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
57
2021 lobbying importance (index scores)
71
73
70
69
70
69
68
68
67
66
66
65
70
70
70
67
70
68
67
66
66
65
65
64
71
70
69
68
70
69
68
68
68
66
66
65
72
70
70
69
72
70
69
68
67
66
67
66
73
71
71
70
69
71
69
68
70
69
68
66
72
72
71
70
68
70
69
68
68
68
67
66
73
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
69
n/a
67
n/a
67
73
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
71
70
69
n/a
68
n/a
66
73
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
72
70
68
n/a
68
n/a
67
73p
71p
71p
71p
70
70
69
69
68
68q
67q
66q
Women
Small Rural
50-64
Large Rural
Regional Centres
35-49
Overall
65+
Interface
18-34
Metropolitan
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 25
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Lobbying on behalf of the community importance
58
2021 lobbying importance (%)
24
23
21
23
23
24
23
23
23
23
21
25
26
26
24
20
27
21
27
28
21
39
38
38
37
39
38
39
40
40
41
39
35
37
38
43
37
41
38
35
38
43
27
27
28
27
27
27
28
27
27
27
28
28
26
26
25
29
24
31
27
24
23
7
8
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
7
6
5
9
5
7
7
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
59
2021 lobbying performance (index scores)
57
54
52
57
54
52
53
53
53
51
51
49
57
56
54
57
55
55
54
54
52
52
54
51
57
55
54
56
54
53
54
53
52
52
54
50
57
55
54
56
55
55
54
53
51
52
54
51
57
54
52
56
54
54
53
53
50
51
55
50
58
57
55
58
56
56
55
55
53
53
56
53
59
57
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
56
55
n/a
54
n/a
53
59
57
n/a
n/a
56
n/a
55
55
n/a
53
n/a
52
60
57
n/a
n/a
56
n/a
55
55
n/a
53
n/a
52
57p
56p
56
56p
55
55
55
54q
54q
53q
52q
52q
18-34
65+
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Women
Small Rural
Overall
Men
Large Rural
35-49
Interface
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 51
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Lobbying on behalf of the community performance
60
2021 lobbying performance (%)
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
9
6
7
6
6
6
5
6
8
25
24
25
24
24
23
26
27
26
27
23
23
27
25
27
25
25
30
25
22
24
32
32
31
32
31
31
32
32
33
33
31
30
32
34
30
32
31
34
34
32
29
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
11
12
12
10
14
13
13
13
13
12
11
13
15
11
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
6
5
6
5
5
5
4
6
6
4
19
19
20
20
22
22
20
19
18
17
27
22
14
16
18
18
21
16
18
19
23
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 51
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
61
2021 community decisions made importance (index scores)
81
81
81
79
80
80
82
77
79
80
79
78
81
82
81
80
82
80
81
78
79
80
78
78
81
81
80
80
81
80
77
79
79
78
79
78
81
81
81
80
82
79
78
78
79
79
79
78
82
80
80
80
82
80
n/a
79
79
79
79
77
81
82
80
80
80
80
82
78
79
78
80
77
81
81
80
n/a
n/a
79
n/a
78
79
n/a
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
83p
82
82p
82p
81
81
80
80q
80q
80
80q
79q
Women
50-64
35-49
Large Rural
Regional Centres
Overall
Small Rural
18-34
65+
Interface
Metropolitan
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 24
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Decisions made in the interest of the community
importance
62
2021 community decisions made importance (%)
42
39
39
39
39
39
38
37
40
41
42
44
39
38
45
40
46
46
37
40
41
42
42
42
42
42
43
40
38
41
40
44
41
39
40
38
38
44
14
15
15
15
15
14
15
16
15
16
13
13
14
15
12
17
13
12
12
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
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: 24
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
63
2021 community decisions made performance (index scores)
59
57
54
54
53
53
52
52
51
50
52
49
60
58
55
55
55
55
54
55
52
52
52
51
58
57
54
54
52
54
53
56
52
52
52
50
58
58
55
55
55
54
53
55
52
52
51
51
59
58
55
54
53
54
53
56
52
51
50
50
59
59
56
55
56
55
54
58
53
52
52
52
n/a
60
57
58
n/a
57
56
n/a
55
n/a
n/a
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
61p
60p
57p
57p
56
56
55q
55
54q
54q
54q
52q
Metropolitan
18-34
Women
65+
Small Rural
Overall
Men
Interface
35-49
Regional Centres
Large Rural
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Decisions made in the interest of the community
performance
64
2021 community decisions made performance (%)
8
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
9
7
8
7
8
8
8
8
7
6
9
32
29
30
30
29
29
31
33
36
31
30
29
34
32
32
40
31
28
30
32
33
33
34
34
33
33
34
29
33
34
34
31
32
33
31
32
33
32
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
12
9
13
15
15
14
13
12
10
15
15
12
6
8
7
7
7
8
6
5
4
6
8
7
6
7
5
4
8
8
6
9
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
13
11
6
8
7
8
10
8
7
9
11
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
65
2021 sealed local roads importance (index scores)
81
82
81
83
80
81
80
79
79
78
77
77
80
81
81
82
79
80
80
79
79
77
77
77
82
82
81
84
80
80
80
80
81
78
78
77
79
80
80
81
79
77
79
78
80
77
77
75
79
79
79
n/a
79
80
78
78
76
76
76
76
77
78
78
78
78
78
77
76
77
75
75
73
n/a
79
79
n/a
78
n/a
79
77
n/a
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
82p
81p
81p
81p
80p
80p
80p
79
79
78q
78q
77q
Interface
50-64
Women
Small Rural
65+
Large Rural
35-49
Overall
Regional Centres
Men
Metropolitan
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 24
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
importance
66
2021 sealed local roads importance (%)
38
38
37
38
35
34
32
33
33
47
36
40
40
35
41
34
42
41
37
43
43
45
44
44
46
44
45
45
37
45
41
43
44
42
42
39
42
48
16
16
16
15
18
16
20
18
18
14
17
16
15
18
15
21
17
15
13
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
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: 24
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
67
2021 sealed local roads performance (index scores)
67
55
56
56
55
54
54
54
53
50
51
47
69
57
58
57
60
56
56
56
54
53
53
47
68
54
55
55
57
53
53
53
52
50
49
45
66
53
54
56
59
54
53
53
52
51
50
43
67
54
56
58
60
54
54
54
52
51
52
44
69
55
57
57
60
55
55
55
53
52
52
45
n/a
n/a
56
59
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
68p
60p
58p
58p
57
57
57
57
55q
54q
53q
50q
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
65+
18-34
Interface
Women
Overall
Men
35-49
50-64
Small Rural
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of sealed local roads in your area
performance
68
2021 sealed local roads performance (%)
13
11
13
11
11
11
11
12
21
13
15
8
9
13
12
14
12
10
13
34
32
33
31
32
33
33
33
43
34
36
28
31
34
33
37
33
31
34
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
27
23
29
27
30
31
27
30
26
27
30
31
15
16
16
17
16
16
16
17
9
14
13
19
16
15
15
14
16
17
13
9
11
10
12
12
11
10
10
3
9
8
14
10
10
9
9
11
10
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Informing the community importance
69
2021 informing community importance (index scores)
77
77
76
78
77
74
75
77
75
72
72
73
78
79
75
77
75
74
75
76
74
74
73
71
77
77
76
76
75
77
75
75
75
73
73
72
77
77
76
76
74
74
74
76
74
72
73
71
79
76
76
77
77
77
76
78
75
75
74
72
78
76
75
77
76
74
75
76
75
73
73
72
78
n/a
75
76
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
75
73
n/a
71
78
n/a
75
77
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
75
73
n/a
71
78
n/a
75
78
n/a
n/a
75
n/a
75
74
n/a
72
79p
79p
78p
78
78p
77
77
77
76q
75q
75q
74q
Women
Regional Centres
65+
50-64
Large Rural
Interface
Overall
Small Rural
35-49
18-34
Metropolitan
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 27
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Informing the community importance
70
2021 informing community importance (%)
35
32
32
32
30
33
30
30
30
31
31
36
39
37
34
31
39
33
35
38
35
41
42
41
41
43
42
44
43
44
44
41
41
42
41
42
41
42
40
39
40
46
19
22
22
22
23
20
22
22
22
21
23
19
16
18
20
22
17
22
21
18
16
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Informing the community performance
71
2021 informing community performance (index scores)
62
59
60
59
58
59
58
56
58
59
57
56
62
61
60
60
58
60
59
56
60
61
59
57
61
61
60
60
56
59
58
59
58
59
60
56
61
60
61
60
58
59
58
58
59
60
55
57
63
61
59
60
58
59
58
59
59
56
55
56
64
62
61
62
60
61
60
58
61
59
56
58
n/a
63
65
63
n/a
62
62
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
60
n/a
63
63
62
n/a
61
61
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
59
n/a
63
62
61
n/a
60
59
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
57
62p
62p
61p
61p
61p
60
60
59
59q
59q
58q
57q
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Small Rural
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
Large Rural
Interface
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 35
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Informing the community performance
72
2021 informing community performance (%)
13
12
13
11
11
12
12
13
12
12
14
12
13
12
13
12
14
13
12
11
15
36
35
35
36
35
35
38
40
38
38
37
32
34
34
38
36
36
39
35
33
35
31
32
31
31
32
31
31
30
32
31
31
33
31
32
30
32
31
30
32
33
30
12
13
14
13
13
13
12
11
11
13
11
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
13
15
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
6
6
5
5
5
5
3
5
6
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
73
2021 streets and footpaths importance (index scores)
79
80
78
81
79
79
78
78
78
77
74
76
79
79
78
79
78
78
77
77
77
77
75
75
80
79
79
79
78
78
78
77
79
76
75
76
80
79
78
78
78
78
77
75
77
76
74
75
79
80
78
78
78
77
77
77
77
75
76
74
78
79
77
78
78
78
77
77
77
76
75
75
n/a
79
n/a
78
78
77
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
n/a
81
n/a
79
78
78
78
n/a
n/a
n/a
75
75
n/a
79
n/a
79
77
78
77
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
74
82p
81p
80p
80
80p
80p
79
79
78q
77q
77q
76q
Interface
Women
Metropolitan
50-64
35-49
65+
Overall
Large Rural
Regional Centres
Small Rural
18-34
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 25
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
importance
74
2021 streets and footpaths importance (%)
38
36
34
35
34
34
34
33
35
32
38
46
36
39
34
33
43
35
41
41
36
42
42
44
43
42
43
43
44
44
46
45
39
43
39
42
44
40
40
39
41
47
17
19
18
18
19
18
19
18
18
18
15
13
19
17
19
19
15
22
18
15
13
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
75
2021 streets and footpaths performance (index scores)
64
60
59
59
58
58
57
57
54
57
55
54
65
62
61
60
59
59
58
58
60
57
57
55
64
62
59
59
58
58
58
58
59
57
56
54
62
60
57
57
57
56
57
56
56
57
54
53
63
60
58
58
57
57
57
56
57
58
55
53
64
62
58
59
58
58
57
57
56
59
55
54
n/a
62
n/a
59
58
57
57
56
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
63
n/a
59
58
57
57
56
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
58
57
56
57
56
n/a
n/a
54
n/a
65p
63p
62p
61p
59
58
58q
58q
58
58
57q
55q
Metropolitan
18-34
Regional Centres
Men
Overall
35-49
65+
Women
Interface
Small Rural
50-64
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 32
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area
performance
76
2021 streets and footpaths performance (%)
15
13
14
14
13
12
13
13
14
13
20
14
17
13
11
16
14
17
13
13
15
35
34
35
34
33
34
34
34
33
34
39
34
37
31
34
36
33
39
35
34
31
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
26
28
26
28
30
26
29
25
29
27
29
14
15
14
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
11
14
13
16
14
13
14
13
13
15
14
7
8
7
7
9
8
7
7
8
9
4
9
5
9
7
7
7
5
8
8
7
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
3
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Traffic management importance
77
2021 traffic management importance (index scores)
80
75
76
74
72
73
73
72
70
71
n/a
83
74
76
74
73
75
73
73
71
72
61
84
74
77
73
74
76
74
74
71
73
63
67
74
75
72
71
76
72
72
69
71
62
71
73
75
72
72
75
72
72
69
70
63
68
73
73
72
72
74
71
71
68
68
57
n/a
73
73
71
n/a
n/a
70
69
67
69
n/a
n/a
74
75
74
n/a
n/a
72
71
69
70
n/a
n/a
75
76
74
n/a
n/a
73
73
70
72
n/a
81p
77p
75p
74
74
74
73
73
72
71q
64q
Interface
65+
Women
50-64
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Overall
35-49
Men
18-34
Small Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Traffic management importance
78
2021 traffic management importance (%)
29
29
30
31
27
27
25
23
26
29
29
45
29
15
27
31
25
30
33
32
40
41
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
41
37
43
37
40
41
39
38
38
46
25
23
23
22
24
24
26
27
25
23
25
15
23
38
26
24
31
27
23
16
4
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
2
5
7
5
3
4
4
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Traffic management performance
79
2021 traffic management performance (index scores)
64
60
56
59
58
58
62
58
59
55
57
52
66
59
60
58
58
58
59
57
59
56
56
52
65
58
56
57
58
57
60
56
57
55
55
51
67
61
61
56
60
59
62
58
60
58
57
59
65
61
59
56
60
59
62
57
60
57
57
57
67
62
62
57
60
60
59
59
60
58
57
61
n/a
63
n/a
n/a
61
60
n/a
60
60
59
58
n/a
n/a
63
n/a
n/a
60
60
n/a
59
61
58
57
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
59
58
n/a
58
60
55
56
n/a
67p
61p
60
59
59
59
59
59
59
57q
57q
52q
Small Rural
18-34
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
Large Rural
Men
65+
35-49
50-64
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 13
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Traffic management performance
80
2021 traffic management performance (%)
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
12
7
13
11
10
12
10
9
10
37
38
37
36
38
38
40
40
39
38
37
30
40
40
47
36
38
40
37
35
35
31
30
31
30
30
30
31
30
31
31
33
30
27
32
24
31
31
32
30
30
31
13
13
13
15
13
13
12
12
13
13
12
18
13
13
7
14
12
11
14
15
13
5
7
6
7
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
11
6
4
2
5
6
4
7
6
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
6
3
3
1
2
4
5
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Parking facilities importance
81
2021 parking importance (index scores)
75
74
69
75
72
71
71
69
68
67
66
73
74
66
75
72
71
73
70
68
69
66
74
74
64
75
72
71
73
70
69
69
66
73
73
64
72
71
70
73
69
66
67
66
73
74
65
73
70
70
72
69
66
68
68
74
74
67
74
71
70
72
70
67
67
67
74
74
n/a
n/a
71
70
n/a
69
67
68
n/a
74
75
n/a
n/a
73
71
n/a
70
67
68
n/a
74
74
n/a
n/a
72
71
n/a
70
68
68
n/a
76p
74p
73
73
73
72
72
70q
69q
68q
67q
65+
Women
Small Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
Overall
Metropolitan
35-49
Men
18-34
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 15
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Parking facilities importance
82
2021 parking importance (%)
27
27
26
27
25
24
24
24
25
24
26
30
22
32
24
30
23
26
30
31
39
39
40
39
39
41
41
40
42
42
42
38
35
37
39
40
36
39
37
45
26
26
26
27
28
27
27
28
26
27
25
25
32
25
28
24
32
27
26
19
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
4
8
4
7
4
8
6
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Parking facilities performance
83
2021 parking performance (index scores)
60
57
56
56
56
55
58
54
54
54
57
49
60
57
56
55
56
56
57
55
54
55
58
50
60
58
56
55
56
56
57
55
56
54
59
51
63
56
56
53
56
55
57
55
54
54
60
52
61
57
57
54
56
56
56
56
55
55
58
54
62
59
58
55
58
57
60
56
55
55
59
53
n/a
60
58
n/a
58
57
n/a
57
55
56
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
57
n/a
58
57
n/a
56
55
56
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
55
n/a
57
56
n/a
56
55
55
n/a
n/a
62p
60p
58
58
58
58
57
57
56q
56q
56q
55q
Small Rural
18-34
35-49
Metropolitan
Men
Overall
Interface
Women
50-64
65+
Large Rural
Regional Centres
2020 2019 2018 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: 19
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Parking facilities performance
84
2021 parking performance (%)
10
9
9
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
10
10
11
7
14
10
10
12
9
10
10
35
33
34
35
33
34
36
35
36
35
36
38
33
37
38
38
33
38
39
33
32
32
32
32
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
32
28
31
32
31
30
33
31
31
33
32
14
16
16
15
16
14
15
15
14
15
13
16
15
16
12
13
14
13
13
14
15
6
8
7
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
7
9
6
4
6
6
4
6
7
7
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
4
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Enforcement of local laws importance
85
2021 law enforcement importance (index scores)
73
73
73
71
71
70
70
69
68
68
66
66
75
73
72
73
70
69
71
71
69
68
68
66
74
74
72
73
71
71
71
70
69
68
66
67
74
73
73
72
71
71
71
70
70
68
67
68
74
73
71
71
70
71
70
70
70
69
69
66
74
71
72
72
72
71
71
70
70
70
68
67
74
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
68
n/a
n/a
66
75
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
71
71
72
70
n/a
n/a
68
74
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
70
70
71
68
n/a
n/a
66
73p
73p
72p
71
71
70
70
68q
67q
67q
67q
66q
Women
Interface
65+
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
50-64
Overall
18-34
35-49
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 25
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Enforcement of local laws importance
86
2021 law enforcement importance (%)
25
26
27
27
27
26
25
24
27
24
27
34
28
21
21
20
29
25
24
26
25
38
38
38
37
38
38
41
40
40
41
38
34
38
39
38
37
39
34
34
36
45
28
26
26
27
26
27
27
28
26
27
26
24
27
30
32
31
25
31
31
29
24
6
7
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
7
7
8
4
8
7
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Enforcement of local laws performance
87
2021 law enforcement performance (index scores)
66
64
65
64
63
63
64
62
62
62
59
60
67
66
64
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
62
61
67
66
64
65
64
64
64
62
63
62
61
61
67
66
64
65
64
64
63
63
65
63
60
61
67
64
64
65
63
63
63
62
64
62
61
61
70
67
66
67
66
65
65
64
66
64
65
63
69
n/a
n/a
67
66
66
n/a
65
n/a
64
n/a
63
69
n/a
n/a
66
65
65
n/a
64
n/a
64
n/a
62
69
n/a
n/a
67
65
64
n/a
64
n/a
64
n/a
63
69p
67p
66p
66p
64
64
64
63q
63q
63q
63
61q
18-34
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
35-49
Large Rural
Men
Small Rural
65+
Interface
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 34
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Enforcement of local laws performance
88
2021 law enforcement performance (%)
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
13
13
12
13
16
13
11
12
13
15
12
11
11
39
38
38
39
39
37
40
41
40
40
40
36
41
38
39
38
40
47
41
35
34
26
27
26
25
26
26
26
25
25
26
26
26
25
28
26
28
25
24
25
28
27
7
8
8
8
8
8
6
7
7
7
6
9
6
7
8
7
7
4
7
9
8
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
4
3
12
12
12
12
13
14
12
11
12
11
14
12
9
12
13
11
14
7
11
14
16
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Family support services importance
89
2021 family support importance (index scores)
79
76
77
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
71
78
76
76
75
74
74
75
71
73
72
72
69
78
76
76
75
74
74
75
69
72
72
72
69
77
76
74
76
73
73
73
71
72
72
71
69
77
75
75
73
74
73
73
72
72
70
71
68
77
74
74
75
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
68
77
74
n/a
n/a
73
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
72
68
78
75
n/a
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
72
68
78
75
n/a
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
73
69
81p
79p
78p
78p
76
76
76
76
75
75
74q
72q
Women
18-34
Interface
Regional Centres
35-49
Overall
Metropolitan
Small Rural
Large Rural
50-64
65+
Men
2020 2019 2018 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 Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Family support services importance
90
2021 family support importance (%)
34
31
29
30
28
28
28
26
27
27
33
39
37
32
30
27
41
40
35
33
28
40
42
42
40
41
41
42
42
44
44
41
37
39
39
46
40
41
37
40
38
45
20
20
21
23
22
22
23
24
22
22
20
19
18
23
16
25
14
19
20
23
19
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Family support services performance
91
2021 family support performance (index scores)
69
69
65
65
66
66
66
64
63
65
63
65
70
69
67
68
68
67
67
65
67
67
64
67
68
68
66
66
67
66
67
65
67
67
63
67
70
68
66
67
68
67
67
65
65
66
64
67
69
69
66
66
66
66
67
64
65
66
62
66
70
68
67
66
67
67
68
67
66
66
65
67
72
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
68
69
n/a
n/a
67
66
69
71
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
67
68
n/a
n/a
66
64
68
70
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
67
67
n/a
n/a
65
64
68
69p
67p
66
66
66
66
66
66
65
65q
65
64q
65+
Metropolitan
Men
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Overall
Women
Large Rural
Interface
35-49
50-64
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 29
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Family support services performance
92
2021 family support performance (%)
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
12
11
11
10
10
13
10
11
10
12
9
11
9
13
31
30
32
31
30
31
34
33
33
34
27
32
35
31
30
31
30
35
33
28
28
21
21
20
21
20
21
21
20
21
22
21
23
23
23
18
22
21
25
22
20
18
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
7
5
5
4
6
7
5
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
31
31
31
32
34
32
29
29
29
26
37
28
21
30
34
32
30
22
26
37
37
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Elderly support services importance
93
2021 elderly support importance (index scores)
83
82
81
81
80
81
80
78
78
80
78
76
84
82
81
80
81
80
80
79
78
79
79
76
83
81
81
80
80
80
79
79
77
78
79
75
82
80
78
79
80
79
78
77
76
78
77
74
82
79
79
79
78
79
78
78
77
78
78
75
82
80
77
80
80
80
79
78
77
78
78
75
83
80
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
79
n/a
77
n/a
78
75
83
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
80
79
n/a
77
n/a
79
75
83
81
n/a
n/a
n/a
81
80
n/a
78
n/a
80
76
85p
84p
83
83p
82
82
82
81q
81q
80q
80q
78q
Women
50-64
Interface
Small Rural
Regional Centres
65+
Overall
Metropolitan
18-34
Large Rural
35-49
Men
2020 2019 2018 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 Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Elderly support services importance
94
2021 elderly support importance (%)
43
39
38
38
35
36
36
35
36
37
41
48
45
41
44
35
50
41
41
49
42
42
42
44
43
44
44
44
46
45
46
42
37
40
42
43
44
40
42
40
39
44
12
15
15
16
17
16
16
16
15
14
14
12
11
14
10
17
8
14
15
10
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Elderly support services performance
95
2021 elderly support performance (index scores)
71
72
68
68
68
67
66
66
65
67
65
63
71
72
69
68
68
67
67
66
66
67
67
67
69
70
67
68
68
67
67
65
67
67
67
66
71
72
68
68
68
67
67
66
64
67
66
68
70
71
67
68
69
66
67
66
59
69
65
66
72
74
69
69
69
69
67
67
65
69
66
66
n/a
74
70
70
71
n/a
69
69
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
74
69
69
70
n/a
69
67
n/a
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
73
68
69
69
n/a
68
67
n/a
n/a
66
n/a
72p
72p
69
69
68q
68q
67q
67q
67q
66q
66q
65q
Small Rural
65+
Men
Overall
Women
Large Rural
18-34
50-64
Interface
Metropolitan
35-49
Regional Centres
2020 2019 2018 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 Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Elderly support services performance
96
2021 elderly support performance (%)
16
15
14
14
14
14
15
16
15
15
11
15
15
15
22
15
17
11
11
15
24
32
30
33
32
31
30
34
34
33
34
28
30
31
32
35
33
30
34
29
33
32
20
20
19
19
19
20
19
17
19
20
19
18
25
21
17
20
20
22
18
20
19
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
8
5
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
26
28
28
29
30
30
26
27
28
25
36
28
19
25
21
27
25
28
36
25
19
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Disadvantaged support services importance
97
2021 disadvantaged support importance (index scores)
77
76
77
75
74
74
74
74
73
72
71
78
n/a
77
76
74
75
74
73
74
71
70
76
n/a
72
73
72
74
72
73
72
70
69
75
75
72
72
71
71
71
72
70
70
67
76
73
73
75
71
73
73
72
73
72
69
77
74
72
74
73
74
73
73
73
72
69
77
n/a
n/a
74
72
n/a
72
72
72
n/a
68
78
n/a
n/a
75
73
n/a
73
73
72
n/a
69
77
n/a
n/a
75
73
n/a
73
73
72
n/a
69
81p
78
78
77
77
77
77
76
76
74q
72q
Women
Regional Centres
Interface
18-34
50-64
Metropolitan
Overall
65+
35-49
Large Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Disadvantaged support services importance
98
2021 disadvantaged support importance (%)
34
29
30
27
26
27
28
25
27
27
34
36
39
28
27
41
36
32
38
31
50
48
41
42
41
41
41
42
42
44
43
43
41
39
40
42
42
40
39
43
37
43
38
28
19
21
22
24
24
22
23
23
23
23
18
20
15
24
23
15
21
19
19
17
9
21
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
2
4
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Personal user*
Household user*
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8
*Caution: small sample size < n=30
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Disadvantaged support services performance
99
2021 disadvantaged support performance (index scores)
62
62
62
61
61
60
59
58
59
59
59
63
65
63
61
61
62
63
60
60
61
60
63
64
61
61
62
61
61
58
62
61
60
62
64
62
61
61
61
63
59
56
60
61
61
64
62
61
60
61
59
59
58
59
60
62
65
63
62
62
62
61
60
61
61
62
65
67
n/a
n/a
65
64
n/a
61
n/a
62
63
64
64
n/a
n/a
65
62
n/a
60
n/a
61
61
63
66
n/a
n/a
66
63
n/a
59
n/a
60
63
65p
65p
64
64
64
63
63
63
62
62
62
Men
65+
Metropolitan
Large Rural
18-34
Overall
Regional Centres
50-64
Interface
35-49
Women
2020 2019 2018 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: 12
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Disadvantaged support services performance
100
2021 disadvantaged support performance (%)
8
7
7
6
6
6
7
8
7
8
7
8
13
7
8
8
8
7
8
9
27
25
25
25
25
24
28
28
27
28
26
28
27
28
29
25
31
26
24
26
22
23
23
23
22
23
23
22
22
23
21
22
26
20
21
23
24
22
22
20
5
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
4
5
9
5
4
6
5
5
6
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
36
36
37
38
39
39
35
35
36
34
41
34
23
39
36
35
30
38
37
38
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Recreational facilities importance
101
2021 recreational facilities importance (index scores)
75
74
73
74
72
72
72
73
72
72
71
69
75
73
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
71
70
70
75
75
74
74
74
73
73
72
74
72
72
72
74
74
72
73
73
73
72
71
72
71
70
71
75
75
73
73
73
73
73
72
72
71
71
72
75
73
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
71
71
70
74
74
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
75
74
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
75
74
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
70
76p
75p
75
74
74
74
74
73q
73q
73q
72q
72q
35-49
Women
Interface
50-64
Regional Centres
Metropolitan
Overall
Small Rural
Large Rural
65+
Men
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 33
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Recreational facilities importance
102
2021 recreational facilities importance (%)
26
24
23
25
24
25
23
23
23
22
27
31
27
25
25
24
29
25
32
29
22
46
45
46
46
46
45
46
47
47
49
46
41
46
45
47
45
46
41
45
45
51
24
26
26
25
26
24
26
26
26
25
23
23
24
25
24
26
22
30
21
23
22
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Recreational facilities performance
103
2021 recreational facilities performance (index scores)
74
73
70
70
70
70
68
69
68
68
67
67
75
74
71
70
70
71
69
70
68
68
70
68
74
72
70
69
69
70
68
69
69
68
68
66
73
73
69
69
70
70
69
68
69
68
66
66
73
72
70
69
69
69
67
69
68
67
67
65
74
73
69
69
70
70
69
69
70
67
68
66
n/a
74
n/a
70
71
71
69
71
n/a
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
70
70
70
69
70
n/a
68
n/a
n/a
n/a
74
n/a
69
70
70
68
70
n/a
67
n/a
n/a
75p
74p
74p
71
71
71
70q
70q
69q
69q
68q
68q
Metropolitan
65+
Regional Centres
Men
Overall
Women
50-64
18-34
Small Rural
35-49
Interface
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 42
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Recreational facilities performance
104
2021 recreational facilities performance (%)
23
23
23
22
22
21
22
23
22
21
27
19
29
20
22
24
23
20
22
22
27
43
42
44
42
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
43
43
41
43
44
42
46
41
42
42
22
22
21
22
22
23
23
21
22
22
19
23
20
24
22
21
22
23
23
21
19
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
7
7
3
7
5
8
7
6
6
6
7
7
4
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
5
6
3
4
4
4
5
3
3
4
7
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 42
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The appearance of public areas importance
105
2021 public areas importance (index scores)
75
75
76
73
74
73
74
74
74
74
71
72
73
75
75
74
74
73
74
73
74
73
71
71
76
76
75
74
75
73
75
74
74
74
71
72
75
76
75
75
75
73
75
74
74
74
72
72
75
76
75
74
75
74
75
74
74
74
72
72
73
75
75
73
75
73
74
73
73
74
70
71
n/a
75
75
n/a
75
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
70
71
n/a
76
76
n/a
75
n/a
75
74
n/a
n/a
71
72
n/a
75
74
n/a
74
n/a
74
73
n/a
n/a
71
71
77p
77p
76p
76p
76p
75
75
75
74q
74q
74q
73q
Interface
Women
50-64
Metropolitan
35-49
Large Rural
65+
Overall
Small Rural
Regional Centres
18-34
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 31
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The appearance of public areas importance
106
2021 public areas importance (%)
28
25
24
26
26
26
24
25
26
23
29
33
26
28
25
24
31
27
29
30
26
47
47
47
46
47
48
47
48
48
49
47
44
46
47
48
48
46
42
46
48
51
23
25
25
24
24
23
25
25
23
25
22
20
25
23
23
25
21
28
23
21
20
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The appearance of public areas performance
107
2021 public areas performance (index scores)
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
71
72
70
71
65
74
73
74
73
73
73
72
72
72
71
70
69
73
72
73
71
72
72
71
71
71
70
69
68
73
74
72
72
72
72
71
71
72
69
69
66
73
73
72
72
72
71
71
71
71
69
69
66
72
74
73
73
72
72
72
71
72
70
69
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
73
72
72
72
72
71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72
72
71
71
71
70
69
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73
72
72
71
71
70
70
n/a
n/a
75p
75p
74p
74p
73
73
73
73
72q
72q
70q
68q
Regional Centres
Small Rural
Metropolitan
18-34
65+
Women
Overall
Men
35-49
50-64
Large Rural
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 40
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The appearance of public areas performance
108
2021 public areas performance (%)
27
26
26
24
25
24
24
25
24
23
28
19
32
24
29
26
28
26
27
26
29
46
45
45
45
46
46
47
46
46
48
48
44
43
45
47
48
44
50
46
45
43
19
21
20
21
20
21
20
20
22
21
18
26
19
21
17
18
20
18
19
20
19
5
6
5
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
4
7
5
7
4
5
5
5
6
6
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Art centres and libraries importance
109
2021 art centres and libraries importance (index scores)
69
68
68
66
65
64
64
63
66
62
60
61
69
67
66
65
65
64
64
63
65
64
63
61
69
67
67
65
65
67
62
63
65
62
61
61
69
67
66
66
64
62
63
62
64
61
61
60
70
68
67
66
66
66
63
64
65
64
65
60
70
69
67
67
65
64
63
66
65
63
62
61
70
n/a
68
66
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
66
63
n/a
62
70
n/a
69
67
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
64
n/a
62
71
n/a
68
67
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
64
n/a
62
71p
70p
68p
68
67
66
66
66
65q
64q
63q
62q
Women
Metropolitan
65+
35-49
Overall
Interface
Large Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
18-34
Small Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 22
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Art centres and libraries importance
110
2021 art centres and libraries importance (%)
19
17
17
16
15
18
16
17
16
17
21
19
19
18
14
14
23
18
21
18
18
40
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
42
42
43
37
38
39
38
36
43
33
41
39
46
31
32
33
34
34
30
33
33
33
33
27
33
33
32
33
35
27
38
28
31
27
8
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
9
8
8
10
11
5
9
9
8
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Art centres and libraries performance
111
2021 art centres and libraries performance (index scores)
77
74
75
75
74
74
72
74
72
71
73
71
77
74
76
76
74
74
73
74
73
75
73
73
76
76
75
75
74
74
71
73
72
75
73
73
76
75
75
75
73
73
70
72
72
72
72
72
75
75
74
74
72
72
70
71
71
68
70
71
76
75
75
75
73
73
73
69
71
72
72
73
78
n/a
77
n/a
75
76
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
74
74
76
n/a
74
n/a
73
73
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
73
76
n/a
74
n/a
73
72
n/a
n/a
71
n/a
71
73
76p
75p
74p
73
73
73
73
72q
72
71q
71q
70q
65+
Regional Centres
Women
Metropolitan
Overall
35-49
Large Rural
Small Rural
50-64
Interface
Men
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 28
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Art centres and libraries performance
112
2021 art centres and libraries performance (%)
22
24
26
25
23
23
24
27
25
24
22
19
26
21
19
19
25
16
22
20
27
42
43
42
42
43
42
44
44
44
44
41
43
42
43
42
43
41
45
43
40
40
20
19
17
18
18
18
18
17
18
19
19
21
19
20
20
20
19
24
19
21
16
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
7
14
13
9
13
14
13
12
11
12
14
14
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community and cultural activities importance
113
2021 community and cultural activities importance (index scores)
65
63
62
61
62
62
62
61
62
62
60
58
64
62
61
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
58
64
62
63
61
61
61
60
60
59
61
60
57
65
62
61
61
61
61
63
61
60
57
62
57
66
62
64
62
62
61
62
61
61
63
64
58
66
63
63
62
62
61
62
61
61
59
65
58
65
n/a
62
n/a
62
61
62
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
58
65
n/a
62
n/a
62
63
61
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
59
65
n/a
63
n/a
62
62
60
n/a
61
n/a
n/a
58
67p
65
64
64
64
63
63
63
63
63
62
60q
Women
Regional Centres
18-34
Metropolitan
Overall
65+
35-49
Large Rural
50-64
Interface
Small Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 22
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community and cultural activities importance
114
2021 community and cultural activities importance (%)
15
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
15
13
15
15
12
12
17
17
15
14
13
37
36
35
34
35
37
37
37
37
37
36
38
39
35
37
33
41
35
35
37
40
36
38
40
40
39
38
40
41
41
39
37
35
35
36
38
38
34
37
38
36
34
9
10
10
10
11
10
10
9
9
10
9
11
7
10
10
12
5
10
9
9
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community and cultural activities performance
115
2021 community and cultural activities performance (index scores)
70
68
70
70
68
67
69
67
70
67
66
66
71
66
70
70
69
67
69
67
69
68
67
68
69
69
70
70
69
67
68
67
69
67
68
67
70
69
70
71
69
67
69
69
70
68
67
64
69
65
71
70
69
67
69
67
70
67
68
63
71
68
71
71
69
68
69
69
70
68
69
65
72
n/a
n/a
71
70
68
n/a
n/a
71
69
69
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
70
69
68
n/a
n/a
69
68
68
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
70
68
67
n/a
n/a
68
67
68
n/a
68p
67p
66p
65
65
65
65
65
64q
64
63q
62q
65+
Small Rural
Metropolitan
Women
Overall
Men
Regional Centres
Large Rural
35-49
50-64
18-34
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 28
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Community and cultural activities performance
116
2021 community and cultural activities performance (%)
13
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
17
15
12
11
13
13
15
12
13
11
13
12
15
38
42
42
42
42
41
43
44
44
44
37
33
39
39
38
38
37
38
38
37
37
28
26
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
26
27
32
29
29
26
30
27
31
29
28
27
7
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
8
8
7
5
6
7
9
7
7
4
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
13
9
9
9
10
9
7
8
8
9
16
14
10
10
13
12
13
10
11
13
16
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Waste management importance
117
2021 waste management importance (index scores)
84
84
83
83
83
82
82
82
81
81
80
79
83
83
82
82
82
82
81
80
80
80
79
79
83
83
84
82
82
82
81
81
79
81
80
78
81
81
79
80
80
79
79
79
78
78
77
76
82
82
81
81
80
80
80
79
79
79
78
79
81
80
79
81
80
79
79
80
76
78
77
77
n/a
80
n/a
80
79
80
79
n/a
77
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
81
n/a
81
80
80
79
n/a
76
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
80
n/a
79
79
79
78
n/a
76
n/a
77
n/a
85p
84p
83
83p
83p
82
82
82
81q
81q
80q
80q
Metropolitan
Women
Interface
50-64
35-49
65+
Overall
Regional Centres
18-34
Large Rural
Men
Small Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 32
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Waste management importance
118
2021 waste management importance (%)
44
44
41
42
36
38
35
35
36
32
49
47
44
41
39
40
48
43
47
47
42
42
42
44
43
46
45
46
47
47
49
40
41
43
44
43
43
41
40
40
40
46
12
11
13
13
16
14
16
16
15
16
10
10
12
13
15
14
10
15
11
11
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Waste management performance
119
2021 waste management performance (index scores)
70
70
65
66
66
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
72
73
70
69
68
68
68
66
68
66
66
64
73
75
68
70
70
70
70
69
70
68
69
67
74
75
71
71
69
71
71
70
71
69
70
68
74
76
71
70
69
70
70
69
70
67
68
66
75
77
73
72
71
72
73
71
72
70
69
68
75
n/a
n/a
73
n/a
73
74
n/a
72
71
71
n/a
74
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
71
73
n/a
70
69
69
n/a
75
n/a
n/a
72
n/a
72
73
n/a
72
70
69
n/a
72p
72p
71p
70p
69
69
69
68q
68q
66q
66q
66q
65+
Metropolitan
Interface
Men
Regional Centres
Overall
18-34
Small Rural
Women
50-64
35-49
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 66
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Waste management performance
120
2021 waste management performance (%)
23
20
23
24
25
24
25
26
24
24
27
26
25
21
21
24
23
22
21
20
28
42
40
42
45
44
45
47
47
47
48
43
45
41
39
44
44
40
44
41
41
42
20
23
21
18
18
18
17
16
18
17
19
18
19
21
20
19
21
20
20
21
19
8
10
8
7
6
7
6
5
6
6
6
6
8
9
8
7
8
8
9
9
6
4
5
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
5
6
4
4
4
4
6
5
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development and tourism
importance
121
2021 business/development/tourism importance (index scores)
74
73
69
68
69
68
67
68
65
66
58
71
73
67
64
67
66
65
66
64
63
57
71
74
68
65
68
67
66
66
65
65
59
72
74
69
67
67
69
67
68
66
65
60
71
73
70
69
67
68
67
67
67
64
60
70
73
69
70
69
68
67
67
65
65
59
n/a
n/a
70
n/a
68
68
67
67
66
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
68
68
67
67
65
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
68
n/a
67
66
66
66
64
63
n/a
74p
73p
72p
71
70
70
70
69q
69
67q
62q
Small Rural
Regional Centres
Women
Large Rural
50-64
35-49
Overall
65+
18-34
Men
Metropolitan
2020 2019 2018 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: 22
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development and tourism
importance
122
2021 business/development/tourism importance (%)
24
21
19
21
21
21
21
20
20
18
13
27
26
29
21
26
24
25
26
21
39
38
36
36
38
38
38
38
39
39
35
42
38
42
38
40
36
37
39
43
29
30
32
31
30
30
31
31
31
31
36
25
29
23
30
28
32
29
27
27
6
8
9
9
8
8
7
8
8
9
11
3
5
4
8
4
7
6
6
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development and tourism
performance
123
2021 business/development/tourism performance (index scores)
61
58
63
60
61
61
59
59
58
61
58
57
62
59
66
61
62
62
61
60
59
62
59
58
62
59
65
59
62
62
60
60
59
61
59
58
64
64
66
61
63
63
61
60
60
60
60
58
62
61
n/a
62
62
63
60
62
59
59
59
59
63
63
63
63
63
64
61
62
59
59
60
59
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
60
n/a
60
59
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
61
n/a
60
59
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
63
64
62
n/a
60
n/a
60
59
63p
62p
62
62
62p
61
61
60q
60q
59q
59q
59q
65+
Small Rural
Interface
Regional Centres
Women
18-34
Overall
Metropolitan
Men
Large Rural
35-49
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 28
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development and tourism
performance
124
2021 business/development/tourism performance (%)
11
10
10
10
11
10
11
11
10
10
7
11
13
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
12
33
32
33
33
34
32
34
35
35
35
31
34
33
33
34
33
32
36
32
31
32
32
32
31
31
29
31
31
30
30
31
32
27
33
34
30
33
31
34
33
31
30
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
9
10
12
10
10
10
10
11
12
8
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
2
12
12
13
12
14
14
12
12
13
12
21
15
8
8
9
11
13
8
9
12
16
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council’s general town planning policy importance
125
2021 town planning importance (index scores)
n/a
76
76
73
74
72
72
73
71
70
71
65
78
76
76
75
73
71
73
72
73
73
71
67
75
76
76
74
74
72
73
73
74
71
72
67
76
76
76
74
74
71
72
73
73
70
71
64
77
74
76
75
74
72
73
72
73
72
71
68
72
74
76
74
74
73
72
72
73
72
70
66
n/a
74
76
74
73
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
66
n/a
75
77
74
73
n/a
73
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
66
n/a
74
76
74
73
n/a
72
n/a
n/a
n/a
70
66
77p
77p
77p
75p
75
74
74
74
73
73
73
69q
Small Rural
65+
50-64
Women
35-49
Regional Centres
Overall
Metropolitan
Large Rural
Interface
Men
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 14
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council’s general town planning policy importance
126
2021 town planning importance (%)
29
26
26
27
26
27
25
25
25
25
29
28
29
27
34
27
30
22
32
34
30
40
39
40
40
41
40
41
41
42
42
39
38
38
42
41
39
40
35
38
41
44
23
26
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
24
24
26
24
23
15
24
22
32
24
18
17
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
2
5
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
3
5
4
5
5
2
3
6
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council’s general town planning policy performance
127
2021 town planning performance (index scores)
57
55
55
53
52
54
54
54
50
52
51
49
61
56
54
55
57
55
55
55
48
53
53
50
59
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
53
55
51
50
57
53
54
53
56
53
53
54
51
51
51
49
57
54
52
53
54
52
51
51
49
52
50
48
59
55
54
55
55
54
54
53
53
55
53
51
60
n/a
55
56
n/a
55
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
51
60
n/a
55
55
n/a
55
54
n/a
n/a
n/a
53
50
59
n/a
54
54
n/a
54
53
n/a
n/a
n/a
52
50
60p
56
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
53q
53q
52q
18-34
Metropolitan
65+
Women
Regional Centres
Overall
Men
Large Rural
Small Rural
Interface
35-49
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 21
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Council’s general town planning policy performance
128
2021 town planning performance (%)
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
7
5
5
6
5
6
6
6
4
5
7
28
27
30
27
26
25
28
28
29
29
27
26
29
30
29
29
27
34
27
25
26
30
30
29
31
30
30
31
31
32
32
30
29
33
30
30
31
29
30
31
29
29
12
14
12
13
14
14
12
12
12
14
11
13
12
13
13
12
12
9
13
15
13
5
6
7
7
7
7
6
6
5
6
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
3
7
8
5
18
18
17
18
19
19
17
17
17
15
20
21
16
17
18
15
21
18
18
18
19
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning and building permits importance
129
2021 planning and building permits importance (index scores)
76
74
74
73
71
71
71
70
71
70
68
65
75
75
74
73
71
71
72
71
71
70
70
66
75
74
74
73
70
71
71
71
71
69
68
64
75
74
76
74
72
72
72
69
69
70
68
66
74
74
74
74
70
71
71
69
69
69
71
67
74
73
74
73
71
71
72
70
69
69
70
66
74
73
n/a
74
n/a
71
72
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
66
74
74
n/a
73
n/a
71
72
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
65
74
74
n/a
73
n/a
71
72
n/a
n/a
69
n/a
66
75p
75p
75p
74p
73
73
72
72
71
71q
71q
68q
65+
50-64
Metropolitan
Women
Large Rural
Overall
35-49
Regional Centres
Interface
Men
Small Rural
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 23
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning and building permits importance
130
2021 planning and building permits importance (%)
28
27
26
26
27
26
26
25
25
25
33
25
27
27
25
26
30
21
30
32
30
39
38
39
39
38
39
39
41
40
41
37
39
39
40
39
39
39
36
37
39
43
24
25
25
25
25
25
27
25
27
25
23
26
26
24
25
24
25
33
25
22
18
4
6
6
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
4
6
4
4
6
6
3
6
6
4
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
1
2
5
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning and building permits performance
131
2021 planning and building permits performance (index scores)
57
55
54
51
51
51
51
50
51
46
49
47
58
57
53
55
52
52
51
50
51
48
49
47
57
57
51
54
52
52
51
50
50
51
49
49
60
55
49
46
51
51
50
51
49
51
48
47
55
55
50
46
52
50
49
50
48
50
50
48
57
58
53
49
54
54
53
53
53
53
54
51
n/a
58
n/a
n/a
54
53
53
53
51
n/a
n/a
50
n/a
59
n/a
n/a
55
55
54
54
54
n/a
n/a
50
n/a
60
n/a
n/a
54
54
53
53
51
n/a
n/a
49
58p
56p
54p
52
52p
51
51
51
49q
49q
48q
48q
Regional Centres
18-34
Metropolitan
Interface
Women
Overall
Men
65+
35-49
Small Rural
Large Rural
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 29
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning and building permits performance
132
2021 planning and building permits performance (%)
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
6
23
22
24
24
23
22
25
25
26
26
23
23
30
21
20
24
22
30
23
21
19
27
27
26
27
27
25
28
26
27
27
25
24
28
28
27
27
27
29
25
26
26
13
14
13
13
14
13
12
12
12
12
12
14
8
15
14
14
12
10
14
17
13
8
8
9
8
9
8
6
7
6
7
6
8
6
11
10
10
7
6
11
11
8
23
22
22
23
23
27
23
25
23
23
27
25
20
20
24
19
27
19
21
21
28
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 29
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Environmental sustainability importance
133
2021 environmental sustainability importance (index scores)
78
76
73
76
75
74
74
74
72
73
70
70
79
78
n/a
75
74
74
74
73
72
74
72
70
77
76
n/a
74
73
73
73
72
71
73
70
69
76
75
72
73
73
72
72
72
70
72
70
68
77
77
77
74
72
73
71
73
71
73
74
69
77
75
71
74
73
73
73
73
70
72
77
69
77
75
n/a
n/a
72
73
n/a
73
70
n/a
n/a
68
76
74
n/a
n/a
71
72
n/a
72
70
n/a
n/a
68
75
73
n/a
n/a
71
71
n/a
71
69
n/a
n/a
67
79p
77p
77p
77p
75
74
74
73
72q
72q
71q
70q
Women
18-34
Interface
Metropolitan
35-49
Overall
Regional Centres
50-64
65+
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 26
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Environmental sustainability importance
134
2021 environmental sustainability importance (%)
35
34
33
31
29
30
29
29
27
26
37
44
34
31
31
29
40
41
36
33
29
37
37
39
39
40
40
41
40
42
41
38
30
36
36
34
36
38
33
37
35
40
21
20
21
23
24
21
23
24
24
24
18
19
21
23
23
24
17
21
19
22
20
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
4
3
5
6
8
8
3
4
5
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Environmental sustainability performance
135
2021 environmental sustainability performance (index scores)
62
61
61
60
60
60
61
59
56
60
57
57
64
63
62
63
62
62
63
62
60
61
59
59
64
63
63
64
63
63
64
63
64
61
62
61
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
63
62
62
63
62
64
63
62
64
63
63
63
63
60
62
61
61
65
65
64
65
64
63
63
64
63
64
63
62
n/a
65
64
65
64
64
n/a
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
65
64
66
64
64
n/a
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
n/a
65
64
67
64
63
n/a
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
64p
63p
63p
63p
62
62
62
62
62
61q
61
61
Metropolitan
65+
Men
18-34
Overall
35-49
Regional Centres
Women
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 34
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Environmental sustainability performance
136
2021 environmental sustainability performance (%)
11
10
11
10
10
11
10
11
11
11
13
10
11
10
10
11
11
11
11
10
12
36
33
35
37
37
36
39
39
40
39
35
37
37
36
35
37
34
39
37
33
34
31
33
31
30
29
30
30
29
29
29
30
31
30
32
31
30
32
31
30
32
32
9
10
9
8
7
8
7
6
7
7
7
8
10
9
9
8
9
10
9
10
7
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
11
11
12
12
14
13
13
12
12
12
13
10
10
10
11
10
11
8
10
11
13
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Emergency and disaster management importance
137
2021 emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)
84
83
81
82
81
80
80
80
81
80
78
77
85
85
83
81
81
81
80
81
82
81
79
77
85
84
83
80
82
80
81
81
82
81
80
77
84
82
81
81
80
80
80
80
81
78
77
76
84
83
81
82
80
80
80
80
81
80
76
76
84
81
80
80
81
80
79
80
81
79
77
75
85
n/a
82
n/a
n/a
80
80
80
n/a
79
n/a
76
85
n/a
82
n/a
n/a
80
80
80
n/a
79
n/a
76
84
n/a
81
n/a
n/a
80
79
80
n/a
79
n/a
76
85p
83p
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
80
79q
77q
Women
Interface
18-34
Small Rural
Regional Centres
50-64
65+
Overall
Large Rural
35-49
Metropolitan
Men
2020 2019 2018 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: 19
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Emergency and disaster management importance
138
2021 emergency and disaster management importance (%)
47
46
47
48
45
45
44
45
46
43
44
52
49
47
47
41
53
50
47
49
43
34
35
35
33
34
36
35
34
34
38
34
30
31
35
37
34
34
32
31
32
40
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
12
14
13
11
16
10
12
16
14
11
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
5
2
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Emergency and disaster management performance
139
2021 emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)
68
70
70
70
69
69
68
68
66
68
66
66
73
72
73
75
74
72
72
71
70
72
73
70
72
72
72
73
72
71
71
70
69
71
70
69
71
72
72
70
71
70
70
69
68
69
69
68
71
71
71
68
71
70
69
68
68
68
69
67
73
70
71
68
71
71
70
69
69
68
70
67
75
n/a
72
n/a
73
n/a
71
70
n/a
70
n/a
68
72
n/a
71
n/a
70
n/a
70
69
n/a
69
n/a
67
73
n/a
71
n/a
70
n/a
70
69
n/a
68
n/a
67
72p
72
72p
72
72p
71
71
70q
70q
70
69q
69q
18-34
Small Rural
65+
Regional Centres
Women
Large Rural
Overall
Men
Metropolitan
35-49
Interface
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 25
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Emergency and disaster management performance
140
2021 emergency and disaster management performance (%)
19
17
20
18
17
17
17
20
19
19
12
18
23
22
21
18
21
20
17
18
21
39
36
38
39
37
36
39
38
37
38
35
38
41
38
41
39
38
43
41
37
35
20
22
18
19
19
19
19
18
20
20
19
21
20
21
18
21
19
21
21
20
19
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
2
5
4
5
4
4
4
2
5
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
16
19
19
18
21
21
18
18
17
16
29
17
10
12
14
16
16
12
14
18
20
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning for population growth in the area importance
141
2021 population growth importance (index scores)
n/a
80
78
78
77
77
77
76
75
75
75
73
n/a
80
79
79
78
75
76
77
77
75
77
74
n/a
79
78
80
79
75
77
77
78
76
78
74
n/a
80
78
79
78
75
77
76
75
75
78
73
n/a
79
77
77
77
76
75
76
75
74
74
74
n/a
76
78
79
77
76
75
75
74
73
74
70
n/a
n/a
78
78
77
n/a
75
75
n/a
73
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
77
78
77
n/a
74
75
n/a
73
n/a
71
n/a
n/a
77
78
77
n/a
75
75
n/a
73
n/a
73
82p
82p
78p
78p
77p
77
77
76
75
75
74q
73q
Small Rural
Interface
35-49
50-64
Women
Regional Centres
65+
Overall
Metropolitan
Men
Large Rural
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 15
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning for population growth in the area importance
142
2021 population growth importance (%)
37
37
38
39
36
35
34
33
34
34
36
52
37
33
50
35
39
34
41
40
35
36
37
35
36
38
37
38
38
38
39
35
26
39
38
34
36
36
33
36
36
40
19
19
19
18
19
20
21
21
20
19
20
16
19
22
10
20
19
25
17
18
17
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
4
5
4
5
3
6
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning for population growth in the area performance
143
2021 population growth performance (index scores)
57
54
52
51
52
51
44
51
47
47
49
46
62
57
52
52
52
52
51
52
49
49
49
48
62
56
51
52
50
52
n/a
52
50
48
51
49
62
57
52
53
51
52
n/a
52
49
48
50
50
59
55
52
52
51
51
n/a
51
48
47
49
55
61
60
54
54
54
54
n/a
55
50
50
51
57
n/a
59
55
54
n/a
54
n/a
55
51
n/a
52
n/a
n/a
59
55
54
n/a
54
n/a
54
50
n/a
51
n/a
n/a
58
52
52
n/a
52
n/a
52
49
n/a
48
n/a
59p
56p
54
54
53
53
52
52
51q
51q
50q
47q
Regional Centres
18-34
65+
Men
Metropolitan
Overall
Small Rural
Women
50-64
Large Rural
35-49
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 18
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Planning for population growth in the area performance
144
2021 population growth performance (%)
7
7
7
8
7
6
7
7
7
6
6
4
11
6
7
8
6
7
5
6
9
26
23
25
24
24
23
28
28
26
25
23
22
33
24
24
28
23
32
23
23
22
30
30
29
30
29
30
30
30
31
31
33
29
28
31
30
30
31
30
32
30
29
16
17
16
16
16
16
14
15
14
16
15
22
12
16
17
15
16
14
17
18
14
7
8
8
8
7
8
6
6
6
7
5
10
5
9
7
7
7
6
9
7
6
15
14
15
14
16
16
15
15
17
14
19
13
12
14
14
12
17
10
12
16
20
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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: 18
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Roadside slashing and weed control importance
145
2021 roadside slashing and weed control importance (index scores)
82
80
80
80
78
78
76
76
75
74
78
76
76
76
74
76
75
71
72
67
78
76
76
76
73
75
73
71
75
67
78
76
76
76
74
75
73
71
76
66
76
n/a
75
73
73
75
74
71
76
69
76
77
75
74
73
74
75
70
75
65
78
n/a
78
76
75
n/a
76
71
n/a
68
78
n/a
77
77
74
n/a
76
72
n/a
66
74
n/a
74
73
71
n/a
71
68
n/a
65
82p
82p
81p
80
79
79
78
76q
76q
75q
50-64
Small Rural
Women
65+
Overall
Large Rural
35-49
Men
Interface
18-34
2020 2019 2018 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: 8
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Roadside slashing and weed control importance
146
2021 roadside slashing and weed control importance (%)
40
38
30
29
30
28
28
32
30
24
34
41
45
36
45
36
40
46
40
38
39
41
40
40
42
40
40
42
42
40
37
39
38
38
33
36
37
43
18
19
24
25
25
23
26
23
24
28
22
18
14
21
15
26
20
13
14
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
1
4
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Roadside slashing and weed control performance
147
2021 roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)
54
55
49
49
49
49
48
48
48
46
61
62
56
57
56
56
52
54
55
53
60
61
54
55
55
56
51
53
54
51
54
58
52
54
53
54
50
51
51
50
56
61
55
57
56
57
54
54
51
52
52
62
54
55
55
55
53
52
52
51
n/a
63
55
53
55
55
n/a
53
n/a
51
n/a
63
57
56
56
56
n/a
55
n/a
52
n/a
67
60
59
61
61
n/a
59
n/a
58
57p
57p
52
51
51
51
51
50
49q
48q
Interface
18-34
Men
35-49
Overall
Women
Large Rural
65+
Small Rural
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 13
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Roadside slashing and weed control performance
148
2021 roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)
10
9
12
10
10
11
10
11
11
14
13
9
9
10
10
12
11
8
9
28
27
34
34
31
34
32
32
35
38
33
29
24
30
26
35
28
25
25
29
28
28
29
27
28
30
28
28
28
28
28
32
29
29
27
29
31
29
19
19
15
16
18
15
16
17
16
12
15
19
21
17
20
15
18
20
21
12
15
9
9
11
9
9
10
8
5
8
13
12
12
12
9
13
14
12
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
4
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
149
2021 unsealed roads importance (index scores)
83
82
81
81
81
80
80
78
79
76
76
82
81
80
81
81
80
79
78
79
78
75
84
82
79
82
81
80
80
78
78
79
77
81
81
78
80
79
79
79
77
77
76
76
81
80
78
80
79
79
79
77
78
78
70
82
80
79
80
78
78
78
76
76
76
72
n/a
80
80
81
n/a
78
77
76
n/a
77
n/a
n/a
82
82
83
n/a
81
80
79
n/a
80
n/a
n/a
81
80
82
n/a
80
79
78
n/a
79
n/a
84p
83p
83p
83p
82
81
81
80q
80q
79q
78q
Small Rural
50-64
35-49
Women
Interface
Overall
65+
Men
Large Rural
18-34
Regional Centres
2020 2019 2018 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: 16
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance
150
2021 unsealed roads importance (%)
45
42
41
43
39
40
39
39
44
41
50
40
42
50
43
48
44
51
48
41
36
37
39
38
39
37
39
38
39
39
29
35
38
36
37
35
32
31
36
42
15
17
16
15
17
17
18
17
14
15
18
21
16
11
16
14
20
14
12
13
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
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: 16
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
151
2021 unsealed roads performance (index scores)
55
43
46
44
45
44
43
42
43
43
41
52
50
46
45
45
44
43
41
43
43
42
52
48
44
43
44
43
40
41
42
43
40
52
45
45
44
45
44
43
42
43
44
41
n/a
44
45
43
46
43
44
43
43
42
40
51
47
46
45
48
45
45
44
45
44
43
n/a
n/a
48
46
46
45
n/a
n/a
45
45
42
n/a
n/a
48
45
47
44
n/a
n/a
43
42
40
n/a
n/a
50
46
48
46
n/a
n/a
46
44
43
53p
47
47p
46p
45
45
44
44
44q
44
43q
Regional Centres
Interface
65+
Men
18-34
Overall
Small Rural
Large Rural
Women
35-49
50-64
2020 2019 2018 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: 24
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance
152
2021 unsealed roads performance (%)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
6
10
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
22
20
21
19
21
20
22
22
20
22
24
25
21
21
24
20
25
22
19
21
31
30
30
28
28
29
30
30
29
29
28
30
31
31
30
32
31
29
31
32
21
21
22
24
23
22
22
22
24
21
16
17
21
22
20
22
21
21
22
20
15
17
16
17
16
16
15
14
16
15
15
8
16
15
15
15
15
18
17
12
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
11
10
5
5
5
8
3
4
5
10
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
2015 Overall
2014 Overall
2013 Overall
2012 Overall
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
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: 24
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development importance
153
2021 business/community development importance (index scores)
71
71
68
71
70
69
69
68
69
68
68
72
71
70
69
71
67
69
70
67
67
70
71
70
70
68
70
68
69
n/a
66
68
69
73
71
72
69
71
67
70
n/a
68
69
70
n/a
72
72
69
73
69
70
n/a
67
69
71
n/a
71
69
69
70
67
69
71
68
67
72
n/a
71
70
69
71
n/a
69
n/a
68
67
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73p
72p
71
71
71
70
70
69
69
68q
68q
Regional Centres
Women
18-34
50-64
35-49
Interface
Overall
Small Rural
65+
Men
Large Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 10
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development importance
154
2021 business/community development importance (%)
21
21
21
21
21
22
20
20
21
25
19
21
20
23
22
21
24
19
44
41
41
40
43
43
42
45
46
44
42
43
42
45
44
44
42
44
28
30
31
31
28
27
31
27
27
26
32
28
30
27
29
30
27
27
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development performance
155
2021 business/community development performance (index scores)
63
60
60
58
60
59
59
58
55
57
57
64
62
64
61
59
61
61
60
58
60
60
62
61
63
55
58
60
60
59
56
60
61
62
60
59
58
59
60
61
59
56
59
65
63
60
58
61
58
60
59
59
56
59
62
64
61
63
54
60
60
61
59
58
59
61
65
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
62
62
60
59
60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
63p
61
61
61
60
60
60
59
58q
58q
58q
18-34
Women
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Overall
65+
Men
50-64
35-49
Small Rural
2020 2019 2018 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: 12
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Business and community development performance
156
2021 business/community development performance (%)
8
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
7
8
7
9
10
7
7
8
33
33
35
34
33
33
34
35
32
34
34
30
33
33
41
32
32
29
34
32
31
30
32
29
31
30
33
35
33
35
35
33
32
37
36
32
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
8
9
8
10
9
8
7
10
9
8
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
14
14
13
15
16
17
15
17
16
11
15
14
13
15
9
10
13
21
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Tourism development importance
157
2021 tourism development importance (index scores)
67
64
64
58
61
62
65
62
60
58
51
69
61
62
64
60
59
61
60
57
56
48
71
63
63
n/a
62
61
62
62
60
59
51
70
63
63
n/a
62
62
64
63
61
59
53
n/a
64
65
n/a
64
63
64
67
62
62
57
64
67
66
72
65
65
67
67
63
59
50
n/a
65
67
n/a
64
65
66
n/a
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
n/a
n/a
67p
65
64
64
64
63
63
62
62
62
52q
Regional Centres
50-64
Women
Small Rural
35-49
Overall
65+
Large Rural
Men
18-34
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 9
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Tourism development importance
158
2021 tourism development importance (%)
17
16
14
16
16
18
19
18
9
20
13
19
17
17
16
18
19
15
35
33
31
32
34
34
36
37
25
39
35
36
34
37
33
34
36
37
33
35
36
35
34
35
32
31
36
30
40
31
32
35
33
36
32
33
9
12
13
13
12
10
10
10
19
8
8
8
11
8
13
8
8
9
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
8
2
2
5
5
2
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Tourism development performance
159
2021 tourism development performance (index scores)
62
63
63
63
63
62
61
61
63
62
59
61
64
66
63
64
63
62
62
70
63
58
61
64
67
64
64
63
60
61
64
62
61
65
63
67
64
64
63
61
61
65
63
56
64
62
64
64
64
63
60
62
71
63
56
66
65
63
64
64
63
62
62
67
61
53
n/a
66
n/a
64
66
64
64
62
n/a
62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64p
63
63
63
62
62
62
62
60q
60q
59q
Large Rural
65+
Small Rural
18-34
Women
Overall
50-64
Men
Regional Centres
35-49
Interface
2020 2019 2018 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: 13
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Tourism development performance
160
2021 tourism development performance (%)
11
13
13
12
13
13
12
13
10
8
12
13
11
11
11
9
11
13
35
34
36
37
34
34
35
36
28
35
39
35
36
34
38
36
35
32
30
29
28
26
29
27
28
28
30
34
27
31
30
30
34
30
30
28
9
10
10
11
9
9
9
9
11
11
8
10
10
9
9
11
10
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
11
10
10
11
12
13
13
13
18
10
11
9
10
13
6
10
11
16
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
COVID-19 response importance
161
2021 COVID-19 response importance (index scores)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76p
74p
74p
72
71
71
71
71
70
67q
66q
65q
Women
65+
Interface
Regional Centres
Small Rural
18-34
Overall
Metropolitan
50-64
Large Rural
35-49
Men
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘COVID-19 response’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
COVID-19 response importance
162
2021 COVID-19 response importance (%)
33
31
41
37
29
32
26
39
32
29
34
36
32
34
28
29
31
33
30
33
33
28
29
35
20
20
17
20
22
19
22
17
21
23
21
16
9
9
7
8
10
8
12
5
9
13
8
6
4
4
5
4
5
4
7
2
4
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2021 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Extremely important Very important Fairly important
Not that important Not at all important Can't say
Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘COVID-19 response’ be as a responsibility for Council?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
COVID-19 response performance
163
2021 COVID-19 response performance (index scores)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
75p
75p
75p
74
74p
73
73
73
72
72q
71q
69q
Small Rural
65+
Women
18-34
Large Rural
Regional Centres
Overall
Metropolitan
35-49
Men
50-64
Interface
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘COVID-19 response’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24
Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
COVID-19 response performance
164
2021 COVID-19 response performance (%)
27
26
22
27
27
30
24
30
27
24
26
30
39
36
39
41
40
38
39
38
45
40
37
34
18
20
20
18
18
17
20
17
17
21
20
17
4
4
7
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
6
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
9
11
9
7
9
10
10
9
5
8
10
13
2021 Overall
Metropolitan
Interface
Regional Centres
Large Rural
Small Rural
Men
Women
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say
Q2. How has Council performed on ‘COVID-19 response’ over the last 12 months?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Detailed
demographics
165
Gender and age profile
166
2021 gender
2021 age
Men49%
Women51%
6%
19%
23%18%
34%
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 66
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.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Household structure
2021 household structure (%)
18
12
3
3
25
21
16
2
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 at home
Married or living with partner, no children
Married or living with partner with children 16 or under at home
Married or living with partner with children but none 16 or underat home
Do not wish to answer
167S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Years lived in area
168
2021 years lived in area (%)
14
18
17
12
14
15
13
14
14
15
16
16
15
15
17
16
14
14
14
16
70
66
68
73
69
69
73
71
72
68
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
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
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
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Years lived in area
2021 years lived in area (%)
14
18
17
12
14
15
22
11
8
13
15
29
13
7
4
16
16
15
15
17
16
16
20
15
15
16
19
26
11
7
22
22
22
23
24
25
20
22
23
22
22
19
31
23
16
19
17
17
21
18
17
19
16
19
19
19
24
12
23
17
30
27
29
29
28
27
24
30
34
31
28
9
19
37
56
2021 Overall
2020 Overall
2019 Overall
2018 Overall
2017 Overall
2016 Overall
Metropolitan
Regional Centres
Large 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
169
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 six years of data only.
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Languages spoken at home
170
2021 languages spoken at home (%)
Languages other than English
31%English only
69%
6
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
12
CHINESE
GREEK
ITALIAN
VIETNAMESE
HINDI
ARABIC
FRENCH
GERMAN
SPANISH
CROATIAN
DUTCH
HUNGARIAN
JAPANESE
KOREAN
RUSSIAN
OTHER
Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8
Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
<1
<1
Country of birth
171
2021 country of birth (%)
Countries other than Australia
37%Australia
63%
5
4
3
2
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
19
INDIA
CHINA
UNITED KINGDOM
NEW ZEALAND
GREECE
UNITED STATES
JAPAN
KOREA
GERMANY
CANADA
FRANCE
HUNGARY
OTHER
Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?
Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
91
83
81
80
72
66
57
49
41
33
23
20
19
19
17
16
15
14
12
9
7
85
79
78
78
70
60
53
45
34
30
20
17
15
16
14
14
11
8
11
7
4
Waste management
Parking facilities
Appearance of public areas
Local streets & footpaths
Sealed local roads
Recreational facilities
Unsealed roads
Informing the community
Art centres & libraries
Environmental sustainability
Community & cultural
Business & community dev.
Consultation & engagement
Enforcement of local laws
Planning & building permits
Emergency & disaster mngt
Family support services
Elderly support services
Population growth
Lobbying
Disadvantaged support serv.
Total household use
Personal use
Personal and household use and experience of council
services
2021 personal and household use and experience of services (%)
172Q4. 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: 11
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Appendix A:
Index scores,
margins of error
and significant
differences
173
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.
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.
Appendix A:
Index Scores
SCALE
CATEGORIES% RESULT
INDEX
FACTORINDEX 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
174
SCALE
CATEGORIES% RESULT
INDEX
FACTORINDEX VALUE
Improved 36% 100 36
Stayed the
same40% 50 20
Deteriorated 23% 0 0
Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE
56
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Demographic
Actual
survey
sample
size
Weighted
base
Maximum
margin of error
at 95%
confidence
interval
Overall 28,011 26,400 +/-0.6
Men 12,864 13,056 +/-0.9
Women 15,147 13,344 +/-0.8
Metropolitan 6,203 6,000 +/-1.2
Interface 2,701 2,000 +/-1.9
Regional Centres 3,204 3,200 +/-1.7
Large Rural 8,301 7,600 +/-1.1
Small Rural 7,602 7,600 +/-1.1
18-34 years 2,917 6,724 +/-1.8
35-49 years 4,845 6,031 +/-1.4
50-64 years 7,025 4,729 +/-1.2
65+ years 13,224 8,916 +/-0.9
The sample size for the 2021 State-wide Local
Government Community Satisfaction Survey was
n=28,011. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total
sample base for all reported charts and tables.
The maximum margin of error on a sample of
approximately n=28,011 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 for demographic sub
samples are listed in the table below, based on a total
population of 3,734,800 people aged 18 years or over
across the State, according to ABS estimates.
Each LGA is weighted to an equal population of 400 for
analysis purposes, so that each LGA contributes
equally to the State-wide result.
Appendix A:
Margins of error
175
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Within tables and index score charts throughout this
report, statistically significant differences at the 95%
confidence level are represented by upward directing
green () and downward directing red arrows ().
Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher
or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to
the ‘Overall’ result for the State for that survey question
for that year. In the example below:
• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly
lower than for the overall result for the council.
Further, results shown in green and red indicate
significantly higher or lower results than in 2020. In the
example below:
• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is
significantly higher than the result achieved among
this group in 2020.
176
Appendix A:
Significant difference reporting notation
2021 overall performance (index scores)
(example extract only)
58
54
57
65
66
65+
50-64
35-49
18-34
Overall
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent
Mean Test, as follows:
Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($5^2 / $3) + ($6^2 / $4))
Where:
• $1 = Index Score 1
• $2 = Index Score 2
• $3 = unweighted sample count 1
• $4 = unweighted sample count 2
• $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
177
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Appendix B:
Further project
information
178
Further information about the report and explanations
about the State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section
including:
• Background and objectives
• Analysis and reporting
• Glossary of terms
Detailed survey tabulations
Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied
Excel file.
Contacts
For further queries about the conduct and reporting of
the 2021 State-wide Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on
(03) 8685 8555 or via email:
Appendix B:
Further information
179
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
The 2021 results are compared with previous years, as
detailed below:
• 2020, n=26,923 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 30th January – 22nd March.
• 2019, n=26,739 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2018, n=26,814 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2017, n=27,907 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2016, n=28,108 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2015, n=28,316 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 30th March.
• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 31st January – 11th March.
• 2013, n=29,501 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 1st February – 24th March.
• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the
period of 18th May – 30th June.
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.
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.
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 60% mobile phone numbers to cater to
the diversity of residents, particularly younger people.
A total of n=28,011 completed interviews were achieved
across the State. Survey fieldwork was conducted in
the period of 28th January – 18th March, 2021.
Appendix B:
Survey methodology and sampling
180
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
In 2021, 66 of the 79 Councils throughout Victoria
participated in this survey. For consistency of analysis
and reporting across all projects, Local Government
Victoria has aligned its presentation of data to use
standard council groupings, as classified below.
Accordingly, the council reports for the community
satisfaction survey provide analysis using these
standard council groupings.
Please note that councils participating in 2012-2021
vary slightly. Please note that council groupings
changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council
group results before that time can not be made within
the reported charts.
Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small Rural
Banyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast Alpine
Boroondara Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw Ararat
Brimbank Mornington Peninsula Horsham Campaspe Benalla
Glen Eira Whittlesea Latrobe Colac Otway Buloke
Greater Dandenong Yarra Ranges Mildura Corangamite Central Goldfields
Hobsons Bay Wangaratta East Gippsland Gannawarra
Kingston Warrnambool Glenelg Hepburn
Knox Wodonga Golden Plains Hindmarsh
Manningham Macedon Ranges Indigo
Maroondah Mitchell Loddon
Melbourne Moira Mansfield
Moreland Moorabool Murrindindi
Port Phillip Mount Alexander Northern Grampians
Stonnington Moyne Pyrenees
Whitehorse South Gippsland Queenscliffe
Southern Grampians Strathbogie
Surf Coast Towong
Swan Hill West Wimmera
Wellington Yarriambiack
Non-participating councils: Ballarat, Bayside, Darebin, Frankston, Greater Shepparton, Hume, Maribyrnong, Melton, Monash, Moonee Valley,
Nillumbik, Wyndham, and Yarra.
181181
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 according to the most
recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics
population estimates, whereas the results were
previously not weighted.
• The service responsibility area performance
measures have changed significantly and the rating
scale used to assess performance has also
changed.
As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local
Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be
considered as a benchmark. Please note that
comparisons should not be made with the State-wide
Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological
and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period
2012-2021 have been made throughout this report as
appropriate.
Appendix B:
2012 survey revision
182
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
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
2021 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)
• Value for money in services and infrastructure (Value
for money)
• Contact in last 12 months (Contact)
• Rating of contact (Customer service)
• Overall council direction last 12 months (Council
direction)
• Community consultation and engagement
(Consultation)
• Decisions made in the interest of the community
(Making community decisions)
• Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)
• Waste management
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 2021 State-wide
Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
were optional. Comparison of optional questions is
made against other participating councils in the council
group and against all councils State-wide that also
asked the same optional question.
Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions
specific only to their 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.
Appendix B:
Core, optional and tailored questions
183
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Appendix B:
Analysis and reporting
184
Reporting
Every council that participated in the 2021 State-wide
Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey
receives a customised report. In addition, the State
Government is supplied with this State-wide summary
report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’
questions asked across all council areas surveyed,
which is available at:
https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/our-
programs/council-community-satisfaction-survey
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all
councils participating in the CSS.
CSS: 2021 Victorian Local Government Community
Satisfaction Survey.
Council group: One of five classified groups,
comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres,
large rural and small rural.
Council group average: The average result for all
participating councils in the council group.
Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or
lowest result across a particular demographic sub-
group e.g. men, for the specific question being
reported. Reference to the result for a demographic
sub-group being the highest or lowest does not imply
that it is significantly higher or lower, unless this is
specifically mentioned.
Index score: A score calculated and represented as a
score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is
sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the
category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).
Optional questions: Questions which councils had an
option to include or not.
Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,
meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a
percentage.
Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for
a council or within a demographic sub-group.
Significantly higher / lower: The result described is
significantly higher or lower than the comparison result
based on a statistical significance test at the 95%
confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically
higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,
however not all significantly higher or lower results are
referenced in summary reporting.
State-wide average: The average result for all
participating councils in the State.
Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by
and only reported to the commissioning council.
Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample
for each council based on available age and gender
proportions from ABS census information to ensure
reported results are proportionate to the actual
population of the council, rather than the achieved
survey sample.
Appendix B:
Glossary of terms
185
J00967 Community Satisfaction Survey 2021 – State-wide
THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...
FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.
Contact us
03 8685 8555
John Scales
Founder
Katrina Cox
Director of Client Services
Follow us
@JWSResearch
Mark Zuker
Managing Director