Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd 2020
Community Scorecard ©
Prepared for: City of MandurahPrepared by: CATALYSE® Pty Ltd ©
November 2020
Strategic overview 3
Approach 5
Overall performance 10
Benchmark performance 17
Performance trend analysis 21
Community priorities 24
Familiarity with local services and facilities 31
Governance 34
Economy 49
Community 56
Place 71
Planet 83
Overview of community variances 91
MARKYT® Community Priorities | Council affiliated respondents 94
Contents
Strategic overview
Strategic Overview
4
Vision
58% agree
80Performance Index Score
Liveability Governance
65Performance Index Score
Rates Value
54Performance Index Score
The industry high score; 24% points aboveIndustry Average
5 index points aboveIndustry Average
9 index points aboveIndustry Average
10 index points aboveIndustry Average
Stre
ngth
s
Highest scores
Most improved
Relative to MARKYT® Industry Standards
• Place to live• Weekly rubbish collections• Fortnightly recycling collections
• Social media presence• Education and training opportunities• Youth services and facilities
• Tourism promotion• Economic development• City centre development
Prio
ritie
sPlaygrounds,
parks and reserves
Health and community
services
Employment opportunities
Safety andsecurity
Graffiti, vandalism and anti-social behaviour
Approach
Purpose
Community Scorecard
DLGSC’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework requires local councils to review the Strategic Community Plan at least once every two years.
DLGSC’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework requires local councils to review the Strategic Community Plan at least once every two years.
The City of Mandurah commissioned a MARKYT®
Community Scorecard to:
• Support a review of the Strategic Community Plan (SCP)• Assess performance against objectives and key
performance indicators (KPIs) in the SCP• Determine community priorities• Benchmark performance
The City of Mandurah commissioned a MARKYT®
Community Scorecard to:
• Support a review of the Strategic Community Plan (SCP)• Assess performance against objectives and key
performance indicators (KPIs) in the SCP• Determine community priorities• Benchmark performance
The Study
The City of Mandurah commissioned CATALYSE® to conduct a MARKYT® Community Scorecard.
Scorecard invitations were sent to 5,000 randomly selected households; 2,000 by mail and 3,000 by email. The City of Mandurah provided supporting promotions through its communication channels, including targeted social media promotions to reach young adults.
The scorecard was open from 12 to 30 October 2020.
The scorecard was completed by 671 residents.
A further 16 out of area ratepayers and visitors, and 45 Council affiliated respondents participated. Their responses have been analysed separately. The main body of this report presents responses from resident sample only.
The final resident dataset was weighted by age and gender to match the ABS Census population profile.
Data has been analysed using SPSS. Where sub-totals add to ±1% of the parts, this is due to rounding errors to zero decimal places.
7921
147
52<1<1<1
2431
451213
910
5118
111
29346
11669
201
54
109
1135
1
Home ownerRenting / Other
No responseMale
FemaleOther
Answered togetherNo response
18-3435-54
55+Have child aged: 0-5 years
6-12 years13-17 years
18+ yearsNo children
No responseDisability or impairment
Indigenous AustralianBorn overseas
Mainly speak LOTECoodanupDawesville
Dudley ParkErskineFalcon
GreenfieldsHalls Head
HerronLakelands
Madora BayMandurah
Meadow SpringsParklandsSan Remo
Silver SandsWannanup
Other
7
% resident respondents (weighted)
LOTE = Language other than English
Industry Standards
CATALYSE® has conducted studies for 60+ councils. When councils ask comparable questions, we publish the high and average scores to enable participating councils to recognise and learn from the industry leaders. In this report, the average and high scores are calculated from WA Councils that have completed MARKYT® accredited studies within the past three years.
Metropolitan Regional
Calibrated scores
How to read the performance charts
9
Trend analysis shows how performance varies over time.
Variance across the community shows how results vary across the community based on the Performance Index Score
Performance Ratings
The chart shows community perceptions of performance on a five point scale from excellent to terrible.
The Performance Index Score is a weighted score out of 100.
Score Average Rating100 Excellent75 Good50 Okay25 Poor0 Terrible
MARKYT® Industry Standards show how Council is performing compared to other councils.
Council Score is the Council’s performance index score.
Industry High is the highest score achieved by councils in WA that have completed a comparable study with CATALYSE® over the past three years.
Industry Average is the average score among WA councils that have completed a comparable study with CATALYSE® over the past three years.
Overall Performance
40
43
14
3
The City of Mandurah as a place to live
11
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 666). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 80
Industry High 95
Industry Average 75
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
68
80 80
15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
80 80 78 79 81 82 73 80 82 78 72 83 82 82 82 78 80 78 81 82 85 74 81 76 82 81
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
8040 43 14
97% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
36
40
18
51
76 76
18 20
I am proud to live in Mandurah
Agree NeutralStrongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 621). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)^ Small sample size of comparable councils: Cities of Kwinana, Belmont, Bunbury and Mandurah
Level of agreement% of respondents
12
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 76
Industry High^ 76
Industry Average 67
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
76 77 73 75 76 79 69 77 73 72 68 73 81 80 81 76 69 64 75 83 78 62 80 77 87 81
Total Agree
36 40
76% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
21
17
21
16
98
3 21 1 1
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Net Promoter ScoreLikelihood of recommending the City of Mandurah as a place to live
13
Q. How likely are you to recommend the City of Mandurah as a place to live?Please give a rating out of 10, where 0 is not at all likely and 10 is extremely likely.Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 627).# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Likelihood of recommending% of respondents
Variances across the communityNet Promoter Score
Extremely likely Not at all likely
NPS
Promoters
Detractorsless
equals
Net Promoter Score*
14
39
25
* NPS can range from -100 to +100
City of Mandurah 14
Industry High 68
Industry Average -17
Industry StandardsNet Promoter Score
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
14 14 14 2 24 -14 16 26 17 2 6 11 14 23 22 5 31 -2 20 24 25 -10 23 -1 24 16
9 14
18 20
+50
0
-50
-100
+100
Trend AnalysisNet Promoter Score
12
50
26
9
3
The City of Mandurah as the organisation that governs the local area
14
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 650). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 65
Industry High 74
Industry Average 56
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
5965 65
15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
65 65 65 61 69 67 62 63 63 62 58 65 69 67 66 75 67 64 65 69 70 62 61 64 66 69
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6512 50 26
88% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
6
33
38
19
4
Value for money from Council rates
15
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 601). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 54
Industry High 63
Industry Average 44
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
53 54
18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
54 55 51 52 57 59 44 48 51 55 46 51 61 55 58 62 55 52 54 59 56 47 54 55 55 61
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
546 33 38
77% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Most valued aspects of the City of Mandurah
Q. As a place to live, what do you value most about your local area? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 566) *Chart shows aspects mentioned by 5% or more of respondents.
16
34
30
17
14
12
11
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
5
Waterways and foreshore
Beaches and coastline
Parks, reserves and open spaces
Access to shopping, dining and entertainment
Community spirit, friendly and welcoming people
Natural environment and wildlife
Access to local amenities and services
Local area and facilities are clean and well maintained
Safe and secure area
Scenery and natural beauty of the area
Peace and quiet / serenity
Convenient and accessible location
Lifestyle and feel of the area
Footpaths, walking trails and cycle paths
Local activities and events
Sport and recreation options
Most valued aspects of the local area% of respondents
Benchmark performance
73
8578 77 77 74 73 72 72 71 69 67 64 63 61 58
74 74 73 70 70 69 69 68 67 66 66 63 63 63 62 62 61 60 58 58 57 56 56 56 5653 51 50
Overall Performance | industry comparisons
Industry Average
Overall Performance Index Score average of ‘place to live’ and ‘governing organisation’
18
The ‘Overall Performance Index Score’ is a combined measure of the City of Mandurah as a ‘place to live’ and as a ‘governing organisation’. The City of Mandurah’s overall performance index score is 73 out of 100, 8 index points above the industry standard for Western Australia.
City of Mandurah
Metropolitan CouncilsRegional Councils
City of Mandurah 73
Industry High 85
Industry Average 65
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
How to read the Benchmark Matrix
The MARKYT® Benchmark Matrix (shown in detail overleaf) illustrates how the community rates performance on individual measures, compared to how other councils are being rated by their communities.
There are two dimensions. The vertical axis maps community perceptions of performance for individual measures. The horizontal axis maps performance relative to the MARKYT® Industry Standards.
Councils aim to be on the right side of this line, with performance ABOVE the MARKYT® Industry Average.
This line represents okay performance based on the MARKYT Performance Index Score. Higher performing
service areas are placed above this line while lower performing areas are below it.
19Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
Services are grouped in five areas:
Governance Economy Community Place Planet
Place to live
Governing Organisation
1
234
567
89
10
1112
1415
16
171819
202122
23
2425
26
27
2829
30 31
323334
353637
3940
41
20Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. Grey text = no benchmark available
Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
Below Average Above Average
COMPARSION TO INDUSTRY AVERAGEPE
RFO
RM
AN
CE
IND
EX S
CO
RE
Benchmark Matrix
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
1 Value for money from rates2 Council’s leadership3 Advocacy and lobbying4 Consultation5 Informing the community6 City Voice - City’s newsletter7 City’s website8 Social media presence9 Customer service
10 Economic development11 Promote as tourism destination12 City centre development13 Employment opportunities14 Education and training opportunities15 Youth services and facilities16 Seniors facilities, services and care17 Disability access18 Health and community services19 Community buildings, halls, toilets20 Sport and recreation facilities21 Playgrounds, parks and reserves22 Library and information services23 Festivals, events, art and culture24 Graffiti, vandalism, antisocial25 Safety and security26 Character and identity27 Planning and building approvals28 Access to housing29 Local roads30 Traffic management31 Management of parking32 Footpaths and cycleways33 Streetscapes34 Lighting35 Public transport36 Conservation and environment37 Coastal and estuary management38 Access to beaches, estuary, river39 Weekly rubbish collections40 Fortnightly recycling collections41 Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
Performance Trend Analysis
The MARKYT® Community Trends Window shows trends in performance over the past 2 years.
In the City of Mandurah’s Community Trends Window, detailed overleaf, most services remained steady within ± 4 index points.
The City’s Social media presence was the stand out improver, increasing by 7 points.
The main areas of decline were graffiti, vandalism and anti-social and festivals, events, art and cultural activities, both dropping by 6 points.
1
Community Trends Window TM
Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
22
24
3
ImprovingDeclining Steady
Community Trends Window TM
Trend
Perf
orm
ance
Inde
x Sc
ore
(out
of 1
00)
23
Terri
ble
0Po
or
25O
kay
50G
ood
75Ex
celle
nt10
0
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response (n = varies) 23
1 Place to live2 Governing Organisation3 Value for money4 Council’s leadership5 Advocacy and lobbying6 Consultation7 Informing the community8 City Voice - City’s newsletter9 City’s website
10 Social media presence11 Customer service12 Economic development13 Promote as tourism destination14 City centre development15 Employment opportunities16 Education and training opportunities17 Youth services and facilities18 Seniors facilities, services and care19 Disability access20 Health and community services21 Community buildings, halls and toilets22 Sport and recreation facilities23 Playgrounds, parks and reserves24 Library and information services25 Festivals, events, art and culture26 Graffiti, vandalism, anti-social27 Safety and security28 Character and identity29 Planning and building approvals30 Access to housing31 Local roads32 Traffic management33 Management of parking34 Footpaths and cycleways35 Streetscapes36 Lighting37 Public transport38 Conservation and environment39 Coastal and estuary management40 Access to beaches, estuary and river41 Weekly rubbish collections42 Fortnightly recycling collections43 Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
STRONG + IMPROVING
WEAK + IMPROVINGWEAK + DECLINING
STRONG + DECLINING
1
2
34
56
79 1011
12
13
14
15
1617
18
1920
21
22232425
26 27
28
29
3031
32333435
36
373839
404142
43
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020 Grey text = no trend data available
Community Priorities
The MARKYT Community Priorities chart maps priorities against performance in all service areas.
How to read the Community Priorities
Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
25
CELEBRATE the Shire’s highest performing areas.
KAIZEN: consider ways to continuously improve services with average ratings between okay and good to strive for service excellence
REVIEW lower performing areas.
ADDITIONAL areas with no performance score are added when spontaneously mentioned as an area to focus on improving by 5% or more respondents.
OPTIMISE higher performing services where the community would like enhancements to better meet their needs.
PRIORITISE lower performing services where the community would like the Shire to focus its attention.
Services are grouped in five areas:
Governance Economy Community Place Planet
26
1 Value for money from rates2 Council’s leadership3 Advocacy and lobbying4 Consultation5 Informing the community6 City Voice - City’s newsletter7 City’s website8 Social media presence9 Customer service
10 Economic development11 Promote as tourism destination12 City centre development13 Employment opportunities14 Education and training opportunities15 Youth services and facilities16 Seniors facilities, services and care17 Disability access18 Health and community services19 Community buildings, halls, toilets20 Sport and recreation facilities21 Playgrounds, parks and reserves22 Library and information services23 Festivals, events, art and culture24 Graffiti, vandalism, antisocial25 Safety and security26 Character and identity27 Planning and building approvals28 Access to housing29 Local roads30 Traffic management31 Management of parking32 Footpaths and cycleways33 Streetscapes34 Lighting35 Public transport36 Conservation and environment37 Coastal and estuary management38 Access to beaches, estuary, river39 Weekly rubbish collections40 Fortnightly recycling collections41 Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
KAIZEN
1
23
4
56 78 9
10
1112
13
1415
16
17 1819
202122
23
24 25
26
27
2829
3031
323334
353637
3839
4041
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Acce
ss to
sho
ppin
g,
dini
ng a
nd e
nter
tain
men
t
Res
pons
ible
gro
wth
an
d de
velo
pmen
t
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
Addressing community priorities
Community
Safety, security and anti-social behaviour
27
Challenges• Crime, break-ins, drug dealing, substance abuse, violent and threatening behaviour, hoons and unlicensed trailbikes.• Anti-social behaviour associated with homelessness and substance abuse – residents feeling unsafe in public places like
the City centre and foreshore, especially at night.• Graffiti and vandalism impacting on the aesthetics of the area.
• Increase Police presence and visibility. Stricter enforcement and prosecution for crime, anti-social behaviour and hooning.• Target hotspots for anti-social behaviour such as the City centre, foreshore and shopping centres.• Improve security services and patrols, CCTV, street lighting and traffic calming devices.• Remove graffiti quickly to lessen its impact on the area.
Suggested actions
Addressing community priorities
Economy
Employment opportunities
28
Challenges
• High levels of unemployment.• Lack of work opportunities for youth.• Lack of highly skilled, local employment opportunities, and the need to travel to Perth for work.
• Attract new and more diversified businesses to expand local job opportunities.
Suggested actions
Addressing community priorities
Community
Playgrounds, parks and reserves
29
Challenges• Appearance and maintenance of parks and reserves.• Lack of facilities and amenities in parks.• Inequality between different areas of the City.
• Improve amenities in parks (e.g. seating, BBQs, shade, drink fountains, remove sand to address concerns with needles)• Modernise playgrounds (i.e. more exciting equipment, big slide and flying fox like Manjimup or Donnybrook, water
playground or splash pad like Broome or Geraldton, play equipment for children with a disability), improve maintenance (i.e. fix broken swings) and build more playgrounds in areas without them.
• Improve management of vegetation in parks and nature reserves, with more native tree planting, replacement of dead trees and addressing burrs.
• Provide more dog exercise areas (i.e. off lead dog exercise areas, fenced dog parks)
Suggested actions
Addressing community priorities
Community
Health and community services
30
Challenges
• Existing hospital is too small with insufficient services that mean the community needs to travel to access services. • Lack of support for homeless people and others facing social disadvantage.
• Expand Peel Health Campus with more beds, more health facilities, an improved Emergency Dept, ICU unit, and more parking.
• Provide crisis accommodation for homeless people and domestic violence victims.• Improve access to improved community services (i.e. homeless, mental health, drug and alcohol addiction, aged care,
disability, social disadvantage, domestic violence, literacy challenges, parenting advice, etc)
Suggested actions
Familiarity with local services and facilities
Familiarity with local services and facilitiesHigher levels of familiarity
Chart shows proportion of respondents who were familiar enough with the service area to rate performance.
85
84
84
84
84
84
83
83
83
83
82
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
80
80
80
How the community is informed about what’s happening
Weekly rubbish collections
Fortnightly recycling collections
Efforts to develop and promote Mandurah as a tourism destination
Traffic management and control on local roads
Access to beaches, the estuary and the river
Building and maintaining local roads
Footpaths and cycleways
Playgrounds, parks and reserves
Lighting of streets and public places
Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
How the City centre is being developed
Safety and security
Festivals, events, art and cultural activities
Access to public transport
The area's character and identity
Community buildings, halls and toilets
Management of coastal and estuary areas
Management of parking
Streetscapes
The control of graffiti, vandalism & anti-social behaviour
32
% of respondents who were familiar with service area
Chart shows proportion of respondents who were familiar enough with the service area to rate performance.
79
79
78
78
77
77
76
74
74
72
69
69
68
64
64
58
57
56
56
Conservation and environmental management
Economic development
How the community is consulted about local issues
Sport and recreation facilities
Library and information services
Access to health and community services
Council’s leadership
Customer service
Advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community
Facilities, services and care available for seniors
Access to education and training opportunities
City’s website
Access to employment opportunities
Services and facilities for youth
Access to housing that meets your needs
Social media presence
Access to services and facilities for people with a disability
City’s e-newsletter
Planning and building approvals
% of respondents who were familiar with service area
33
Familiarity with local services and facilitiesLower levels of familiarity
Governance
35
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
KAIZEN
Value for money
Council’s leadershipAdvocacy and lobbying
Consultation
Informing the community
City’s newsletterCity’s website
Social media presence
Customer service
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Governance measures are performing moderately with all areas above okay and
only 5% or fewer respondents mentioning
these areas as priorities to focus on improving.
It is suggested that the City focuses on continuous improvement initiatives.
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
11
3537
12
4
Council’s leadership
36
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 508). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 59
Industry High 67
Industry Average 50
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
51 5460 59
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
59 59 58 55 63 62 54 51 50 55 52 56 64 61 58 65 61 61 52 64 59 55 58 62 59 67
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
5911 35 37
83% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
11
4730
92
53 5158
11 15 18 20
The City has developed and communicated a clear vision for the area
Agree Neutral /unsure
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘no response’ (n = 623). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
37
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 58
Industry High 58
Industry Average 34
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
58 58 62 51 65 61 60 53 51 58 54 58 61 60 62 47 71 51 60 53 62 49 60 59 61 62
Total Agree
11 47
58% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NA
8
33
38
15
5
Advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community to influence decisions, support local causes, etc
38
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 498). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 56
Industry High 68
Industry Average 50
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
58 56
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
56 57 54 53 60 57 54 55 51 56 49 56 60 57 57 53 55 54 49 64 61 50 55 57 59 64
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
568 33 38
79% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA NA
6
33
39
19
4
38 39
11 15 18 20
Elected Members (the Councillors) have a good understanding of community needs
Agree Neutral /unsure
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘no response’ (n = 620). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
39
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 39
Industry High 40
Industry Average 29
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
39 39 38 31 46 41 45 37 31 41 34 36 43 40 38 37 25 38 35 49 41 28 38 47 35 48
Total Agree
6 33
39% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NA NA
5
39
41
12
4
3944
11 15 18 20
Staff have a good understanding of community needs
Agree Neutral /unsure
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘no response’ (n = 620). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
40
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 44
Industry High 53
Industry Average 34
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
44 44 43 40 47 46 44 41 38 44 31 41 51 49 44 38 38 52 45 50 44 43 41 43 38 49
Total Agree
5 39
44% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NA NA
6
34
33
22
6
How the community is consulted about local issues
41
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 527). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 53
Industry High 63
Industry Average 47
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
45 49 52 53
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
53 54 53 50 56 54 52 50 49 51 50 52 56 56 55 50 57 48 48 58 58 48 53 55 58 56
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
536 34 33
73% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
6
32
41
16
5
36 38
11 15 18 20
The City listens to and respects residents’ views
Agree Neutral /unsure
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘no response’ (n = 621). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
42
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 38
Industry High 55
Industry Average 32
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
38 38 39 33 43 39 39 32 30 37 39 33 42 41 36 33 39 40 31 48 42 30 36 42 38 44
Total Agree
6 32
38% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NA NA
11
39 32
14
3
How the community is informed about what’s happening in the local area (including local issues, events, services and facilities)
43
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 570). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 69
Industry Average 54
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
5359 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 60 60 56 63 61 56 57 57 58 54 60 62 62 61 73 59 56 56 62 63 53 61 65 58 66
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6011 39 32
82% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA
4
27
45
18
5
33 32
11 15 18 20
The City clearly explains reasons for decisions and how residents’ views have been taken into account
Agree Neutral /unsure
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘no response’ (n = 620). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
44
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 32
Industry High 45
Industry Average 27
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
32 32 31 31 33 34 31 25 22 39 29 27 36 38 34 25 31 26 33 39 31 24 27 39 35 38
Total Agree
4 27
32% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NA NA
11
41 38
74
City’s e-newsletter
45
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 379). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 62
Industry High 66
Industry Average 59
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
62
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
62 62 64 57 66 64 56 58 55 59 54 61 65 62 61 70 65 60 56 68 63 57 66 56 67 69
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6211 41 38
90% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA NANA
9
3740
9
4
City’s website
46
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 461). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 68
Industry Average 57
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
60 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 60 60 56 63 62 55 55 53 58 52 59 63 58 61 71 57 57 60 57 58 57 62 58 63 65
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
609 37 40
86% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
14
33 41
8
4
Social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, etc
47
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 392). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 62
Industry High 66
Industry Average 54
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
5562
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
62 61 63 57 66 63 59 59 57 57 62 63 59 58 63 84 62 59 60 64 57 60 63 63 62 64
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6214 33 41
88% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
14
4134
83
Customer service
48
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 498). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 64
Industry High 79
Industry Average 62
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
59 5867 64
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
64 64 65 61 66 65 59 61 61 67 55 65 66 67 67 66 64 61 61 60 61 59 64 65 71 71
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6414 41 34
89% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Economy
50
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
KAIZEN
The community would like the City to prioritise
employment opportunities.
Continuous improvement is needed for all other areas of economic development.
Economic development
Promote as tourism destination
City centre development
Employment opportunities
Education and training opportunities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Acce
ss to
sho
ppin
g,
dini
ng a
nd e
nter
tain
men
t
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
8
38
28
18
8
Economic development (what the City is doing to attract investors, attract and retain businesses, grow tourism and create more job opportunities)
51
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 528). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 55
Industry High 58
Industry Average 43
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
50 51 54 55
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
55 55 55 48 61 57 50 48 48 53 48 51 60 60 54 61 59 52 51 66 60 54 54 52 51 56
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
558 38 28
74% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
18
3927
12
4
Efforts to develop and promote Mandurah as a tourism destination
52
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 562). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 64
Industry High 68
Industry Average 50
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
5863 64
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
64 64 64 58 68 66 60 58 56 63 59 61 67 68 64 70 71 64 62 73 64 59 64 62 65 67
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6418 39 27
84% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA
15
36 28
16
5
How the City centre is being developed
53
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 551). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 71
Industry Average 49
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
4449
60 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 59 64 53 66 59 64 63 60 59 64 59 60 61 62 69 68 62 51 70 60 61 58 62 61 61
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6015 36 28
79% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
2
15
31 36
16
Access to employment opportunities
54
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 456). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 37
Industry High NA
Industry Average NA
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
4334 37
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
37 37 40 35 40 39 37 36 33 35 35 36 39 43 37 49 38 42 28 44 36 34 39 37 43 39
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
372 15 31
48% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA
6
28
39
21
7
Access to education and training opportunities
55
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 463). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 51
Industry High 59
Industry Average 50
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
57 5347 51
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
51 51 53 50 52 54 45 48 45 48 46 48 56 56 52 58 57 52 41 55 52 51 53 50 58 51
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
516 28 39
73% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Community
57
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
KAIZEN
The community would like the Shire to focus on
safety, security, graffiti, vandalism and anti-social
behaviour.
There is also a need to optimise delivery of health and community services and playgrounds, parks
and reserves.
Youth services and facilities requires review.
All other services fall into the Kaizen continuous
improvement zone.
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
Youth services and facilities
Seniors facilities, services and care
Disability access
Health and community servicesCommunity buildings,
halls and toilets
Sport and recreation
Playgrounds, parks and reserves
Library and information
servicesFestivals, events, art and culture
Graffiti, vandalism & anti-social behaviour
Safety and security
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
27
37
23
8
Services and facilities for youth
58
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 431). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 49
Industry High 67
Industry Average 48
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
48 48 45 49
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
49 49 53 49 49 52 49 43 43 43 45 46 54 53 49 58 43 48 47 55 54 46 50 49 54 49
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
495 27 37
69% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
16
3837
72
Facilities, services and care available for seniors
59
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 482). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 65
Industry High 72
Industry Average 55
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
60 63 65 65
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
65 65 65 61 68 67 58 60 61 62 63 61 67 62 66 77 73 66 65 65 67 64 63 61 67 66
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6516 38 37
91% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
9
3640
12
2
Access to services and facilities for people with a disability
60
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 380). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 59
Industry High 67
Industry Average 51
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
54 5360 59
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
59 60 58 58 61 62 53 55 56 57 59 54 63 56 60 80 64 56 62 62 59 60 57 57 63 63
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
599 36 40
85% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
12
38 33
12
5
Access to health and community services
61
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 515). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 70
Industry Average 56
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
57 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 59 64 57 62 63 55 52 51 59 58 55 64 63 61 61 68 55 57 63 61 57 60 62 64 60
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6012 38 33
83% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
6
38
38
14
4
Community buildings, halls and toilets
62
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 544). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 57
Industry High 78
Industry Average 60
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
54 5359 57
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
57 58 54 56 58 59 52 56 50 53 51 56 60 59 59 67 54 57 57 61 61 57 54 56 60 58
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
576 38 38
82% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
20
46
28
51
Sport and recreation facilities
63
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 521). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 70
Industry High 85
Industry Average 66
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
62 6371 70
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
70 70 68 69 70 70 64 68 71 69 66 70 71 71 71 74 75 67 69 74 70 67 70 67 75 72
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7020 46 28
94% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
30
38
23
63
Playgrounds, parks and reserves
64
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 559). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 72
Industry High 86
Industry Average 68
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
73 72
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
72 72 71 70 73 74 60 66 69 74 63 72 75 72 74 73 69 68 70 74 72 64 75 72 76 75
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7230 38 23
91% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
25
44
27
4
Library and information services
65
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 517). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 72
Industry High 89
Industry Average 72
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
69 70 72 72
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
72 73 71 69 75 73 66 70 74 74 65 72 75 73 73 80 76 71 68 74 76 65 73 73 77 73
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7225 44 27
96% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
22
44
27
61
Festivals, events, art and cultural activities
66
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 549). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 70
Industry High 78
Industry Average 64
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
63 63
7670
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
70 70 72 66 73 71 65 69 69 71 60 70 73 74 69 68 80 67 67 71 70 65 73 69 73 71
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7022 44 27
93% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
25
40
21
12
2
62 65
18 20
I have a strong connection with my neighbours
Agree NeutralStrongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 617). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
67
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 65
Industry High NA
Industry Average NA
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
65 67 53 64 65 72 49 61 61 64 44 60 77 71 66 37 58 75 62 69 77 57 65 61 67 56
Total Agree
25 40
65% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
7
35
26
24
8
41 43
11 15 18 20
I feel safe in Mandurah
Agree NeutralStrongly agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Q. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 609). # Small base size (< 20 respondents)
Level of agreement% of respondents
68
Industry Standards% agree
City of Mandurah 43
Industry High 94
Industry Average 68
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
43 43 39 39 47 45 38 46 45 36 31 47 45 51 46 69 31 45 40 36 53 28 43 53 49 34
Total Agree
7 35
43% Trend Analysis% agree
Variances across the community% agree
NANA
2
26
33
26
13
Safety and security
69
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 549). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 45
Industry High 76
Industry Average 55
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
49 50 48 45
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
45 45 44 42 47 46 40 46 44 42 36 45 48 48 48 52 42 47 38 47 49 35 47 47 56 41
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
452 26 33
61% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
5
26
29
26
14
The control of graffiti, vandalism & anti-social behaviour
70
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 537). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 45
Industry High 66
Industry Average 44
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
44 4651
45
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
45 46 41 42 47 46 41 44 42 43 38 44 48 50 48 60 45 46 37 50 49 39 47 43 52 45
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
455 26 29
60% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Place
72
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
Place measures areperforming moderately with all areas above okay and
less than 10% of respondents mentioning
these areas as priorities to focus on improving.
It is suggested that the City focuses on continuous
improvement initiatives in these service areas.
KAIZEN
Character and identity
Planning and building approvals
Access to housing
Local roads
Traffic management
Management of parking
Footpaths and cycleways
Streetscapes
Lighting
Public transport
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Res
pons
ible
gro
wth
an
d de
velo
pmen
t
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
13
36 32
15
3
The area's character and identity
73
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 544). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 85
Industry Average 58
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
63 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 60 61 58 63 62 55 55 57 62 52 59 65 63 61 65 62 59 59 63 67 54 62 52 60 67
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6013 36 32
81% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
6
33
40
15
6
Planning and building approvals
74
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 376). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 54
Industry High 65
Industry Average 46
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
4550 52 54
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
54 54 58 50 58 55 53 51 49 54 54 51 57 53 57 63 56 42 47 55 58 53 52 56 62 62
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
546 33 40
79% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
14
37 35
11
4
Access to housing that meets your needs
75
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 428). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 62
Industry High 68
Industry Average 57
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
62 63 62
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
62 65 50 61 62 65 58 56 58 55 58 61 64 57 64 72 63 65 62 66 64 55 62 61 66 59
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6214 37 35
86% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NA
13
37 31
13
6
Building and maintaining local roads
76
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 560). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 60
Industry High 80
Industry Average 54
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
56 5561 60
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
60 61 56 58 62 62 55 58 55 58 53 59 62 63 62 72 60 63 56 68 60 50 58 66 64 60
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6013 37 31
81% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
8
38
32
16
6
Traffic management and control on local roads
77
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 561). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 57
Industry High 67
Industry Average 56
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
49 52 56 57
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
57 57 57 53 61 58 52 57 55 58 51 56 60 59 58 66 61 56 49 58 57 52 59 58 64 58
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
578 38 32
78% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
11
3240
13
4
Management of parking
78
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 539). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 58
Industry High 64
Industry Average 52
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
56 58
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
58 58 56 55 60 59 53 54 58 54 53 58 60 58 61 73 59 58 54 58 60 51 59 60 66 57
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
5811 32 40
83% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
16
37 32
12
3
Footpaths and cycleways
79
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 559). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 63
Industry High 74
Industry Average 53
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
61 58 62 63
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
63 64 59 60 65 63 59 60 65 63 58 65 63 62 64 68 63 63 58 66 66 57 67 63 66 58
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6316 37 32
85% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
14
37 35
11
4
Streetscapes
80
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 539). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 62
Industry High 83
Industry Average 53
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
62 62
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
62 62 62 59 64 64 54 56 60 62 56 62 63 65 65 67 65 57 62 70 64 50 65 59 64 65
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6214 37 35
86% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
9
3738
13
3
Lighting of streets and public places
81
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 554). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 59
Industry High 66
Industry Average 55
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
59 59
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
59 59 57 57 60 60 54 56 58 60 53 58 62 60 60 66 46 57 54 63 61 54 63 60 65 59
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
599 37 38
84% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
NANA
17
43
28
92
Access to public transport
82
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 544). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 66
Industry High 85
Industry Average 62
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
59 5964 66
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
66 66 67 65 67 69 56 62 61 70 61 64 69 67 68 68 61 63 65 72 62 63 71 61 70 73
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6617 43 28
88% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Planet
84
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 488)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
The community is happy with access to beaches,
the river and estuary. Waste collection services
are also rated highly. Celebrate success in these
areas.
Focus on continuous improvement initiatives to conserve and manage the
environment, coast and estuary.
KAIZEN
Conservation and environment
Coastal and estuary management
Access to beaches, estuary and river
Weekly rubbish collections
Fortnightly recycling
collections
Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
15
4132
9
3
Conservation and environmental management
85
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 533). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 64
Industry High 76
Industry Average 58
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
54 5463 64
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
64 64 64 62 66 65 60 62 63 66 58 65 66 63 65 71 64 61 62 72 69 58 65 64 60 67
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6415 41 32
88% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
18
3932
9
3
Management of coastal and estuary areas
86
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 540). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 65
Industry High 69
Industry Average 60
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
54 5866 65
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
65 65 64 63 66 66 61 61 66 66 61 64 67 64 67 79 67 62 63 70 65 60 66 66 64 65
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
6518 39 32
89% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
29
43
23
31
Access to beaches, the estuary and the river
87
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 560). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 74
Industry High NA
Industry Average NA
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
69 72 74 74
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
74 74 75 73 75 74 70 73 75 73 74 75 73 71 75 83 76 73 74 77 77 66 76 73 75 76
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7429 43 23
95% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
38
43
15
31
Weekly rubbish collections
88
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 563). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 78
Industry High 86
Industry Average 73
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
75 76 80 78
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
78 79 78 76 80 80 71 73 76 82 72 77 82 81 80 84 76 75 79 79 76 77 82 78 77 82
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7838 43 15
96% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
34
39
20
51
Fortnightly recycling collections
89
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 562). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 75
Industry High 84
Industry Average 70
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
72 7177 75
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
75 75 76 74 76 77 63 67 67 78 67 72 80 77 76 76 71 73 76 74 72 71 78 75 71 80
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7534 39 20
93% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
31
40
21
62
Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
90
Variances across the communityPerformance Index Score
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas?Base: All respondents, excludes ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ (n = 551). * Positive Rating = excellent, good + okay# Small base size (< 20 respondents)
City of Mandurah 73
Industry High 86
Industry Average 70
Industry StandardsPerformance Index Score
Performance ratings% of respondents
Good OkayExcellent Poor Terrible
66 6373 73
11 15 18 20
Good(75)
Okay(50)
Poor(25)
Terrible(0)
Excellent(100)
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18
+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
O
vers
eas
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
su
rroun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
pG
reen
field
s /
Park
land
s
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s /
Mea
dow
S.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
73 73 72 73 73 75 63 70 70 75 67 71 77 74 77 84 72 73 73 69 72 70 75 73 75 75
Performance Index Score
(out of 100)
Positive rating*
7331 40 21
92% Trend AnalysisPerformance Index Score
Overview of Community Variances
Summary of community variances
92
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
Ove
rsea
s
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
sur
roun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
p
Gre
enfie
lds
/ Par
klan
ds
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s / M
eado
w S
.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
Place to live 80 80 78 79 81 82 73 80 82 78 72 83 82 82 82 78 80 78 81 82 85 74 81 76 82 81Governing Organisation 65 65 65 61 69 67 62 63 63 62 58 65 69 67 66 75 67 64 65 69 70 62 61 64 66 69Value for money 54 55 51 52 57 59 44 48 51 55 46 51 61 55 58 62 55 52 54 59 56 47 54 55 55 61Council’s leadership 59 59 58 55 63 62 54 51 50 55 52 56 64 61 58 65 61 61 52 64 59 55 58 62 59 67Advocacy and lobbying 56 57 54 53 60 57 54 55 51 56 49 56 60 57 57 53 55 54 49 64 61 50 55 57 59 64Consultation 53 54 53 50 56 54 52 50 49 51 50 52 56 56 55 50 57 48 48 58 58 48 53 55 58 56Informing the community 60 60 60 56 63 61 56 57 57 58 54 60 62 62 61 73 59 56 56 62 63 53 61 65 58 66City Voice - City’s newsletter 62 62 64 57 66 64 56 58 55 59 54 61 65 62 61 70 65 60 56 68 63 57 66 56 67 69City’s website 60 60 60 56 63 62 55 55 53 58 52 59 63 58 61 71 57 57 60 57 58 57 62 58 63 65Social media presence 62 61 63 57 66 63 59 59 57 57 62 63 59 58 63 84 62 59 60 64 57 60 63 63 62 64Customer service 64 64 65 61 66 65 59 61 61 67 55 65 66 67 67 66 64 61 61 60 61 59 64 65 71 71Economic development 55 55 55 48 61 57 50 48 48 53 48 51 60 60 54 61 59 52 51 66 60 54 54 52 51 56Promote as tourism destination 64 64 64 58 68 66 60 58 56 63 59 61 67 68 64 70 71 64 62 73 64 59 64 62 65 67City centre development 60 59 64 53 66 59 64 63 60 59 64 59 60 61 62 69 68 62 51 70 60 61 58 62 61 61Employment opportunities 37 37 40 35 40 39 37 36 33 35 35 36 39 43 37 49 38 42 28 44 36 34 39 37 43 39Education and training opportunities 51 51 53 50 52 54 45 48 45 48 46 48 56 56 52 58 57 52 41 55 52 51 53 50 58 51Youth services and facilities 49 49 53 49 49 52 49 43 43 43 45 46 54 53 49 58 43 48 47 55 54 46 50 49 54 49Seniors facilities, services and care 65 65 65 61 68 67 58 60 61 62 63 61 67 62 66 77 73 66 65 65 67 64 63 61 67 66Disability access 59 60 58 58 61 62 53 55 56 57 59 54 63 56 60 80 64 56 62 62 59 60 57 57 63 63Health and community services 60 59 64 57 62 63 55 52 51 59 58 55 64 63 61 61 68 55 57 63 61 57 60 62 64 60Community buildings, halls and toilets 57 58 54 56 58 59 52 56 50 53 51 56 60 59 59 67 54 57 57 61 61 57 54 56 60 58Sport and recreation facilities 70 70 68 69 70 70 64 68 71 69 66 70 71 71 71 74 75 67 69 74 70 67 70 67 75 72Playgrounds, parks and reserves 72 72 71 70 73 74 60 66 69 74 63 72 75 72 74 73 69 68 70 74 72 64 75 72 76 75Library and information services 72 73 71 69 75 73 66 70 74 74 65 72 75 73 73 80 76 71 68 74 76 65 73 73 77 73Festivals, events, art and culture 70 70 72 66 73 71 65 69 69 71 60 70 73 74 69 68 80 67 67 71 70 65 73 69 73 71Graffiti, vandalism & anti-social behaviour 45 46 41 42 47 46 41 44 42 43 38 44 48 50 48 60 45 46 37 50 49 39 47 43 52 45Safety and security 45 45 44 42 47 46 40 46 44 42 36 45 48 48 48 52 42 47 38 47 49 35 47 47 56 41
Summary of community variances
93
Tota
l
Hom
e ow
ner
Ren
ting/
othe
r
Mal
e
Fem
ale
No
child
ren
Hav
ech
ild
0-5
Hav
ech
ild
6-12
Hav
ech
ild
13-1
7H
ave
child
18+
18-3
4 ye
ars
35-5
4 ye
ars
55+
year
s
Dis
abilit
y
Born
Ove
rsea
s
LOTE
#
Coo
danu
p
Daw
esvi
lle &
sur
roun
ds
Dud
ley
Park
Ersk
ine
Falc
on /
Wan
nanu
p
Gre
enfie
lds
/ Par
klan
ds
Hal
ls H
ead
Lake
land
s / M
eado
w S
.
Mad
ora
Bay
& su
rroun
ds
Man
dura
h
Character and identity 60 60 61 58 63 62 55 55 57 62 52 59 65 63 61 65 62 59 59 63 67 54 62 52 60 67Planning and building approvals 54 54 58 50 58 55 53 51 49 54 54 51 57 53 57 63 56 42 47 55 58 53 52 56 62 62Access to housing 62 65 50 61 62 65 58 56 58 55 58 61 64 57 64 72 63 65 62 66 64 55 62 61 66 59Local roads 60 61 56 58 62 62 55 58 55 58 53 59 62 63 62 72 60 63 56 68 60 50 58 66 64 60Traffic management 57 57 57 53 61 58 52 57 55 58 51 56 60 59 58 66 61 56 49 58 57 52 59 58 64 58Management of parking 58 58 56 55 60 59 53 54 58 54 53 58 60 58 61 73 59 58 54 58 60 51 59 60 66 57Footpaths and cycleways 63 64 59 60 65 63 59 60 65 63 58 65 63 62 64 68 63 63 58 66 66 57 67 63 66 58Streetscapes 62 62 62 59 64 64 54 56 60 62 56 62 63 65 65 67 65 57 62 70 64 50 65 59 64 65Lighting 59 59 57 57 60 60 54 56 58 60 53 58 62 60 60 66 46 57 54 63 61 54 63 60 65 59Public transport 66 66 67 65 67 69 56 62 61 70 61 64 69 67 68 68 61 63 65 72 62 63 71 61 70 73Conservation and environment 64 64 64 62 66 65 60 62 63 66 58 65 66 63 65 71 64 61 62 72 69 58 65 64 60 67Coastal and estuary management 65 65 64 63 66 66 61 61 66 66 61 64 67 64 67 79 67 62 63 70 65 60 66 66 64 65Access to beaches, estuary and river 74 74 75 73 75 74 70 73 75 73 74 75 73 71 75 83 76 73 74 77 77 66 76 73 75 76Weekly rubbish collections 78 79 78 76 80 80 71 73 76 82 72 77 82 81 80 84 76 75 79 79 76 77 82 78 77 82Fortnightly recycling collections 75 75 76 74 76 77 63 67 67 78 67 72 80 77 76 76 71 73 76 74 72 71 78 75 71 80Verge-side bulk rubbish collections 73 73 72 73 73 75 63 70 70 75 67 71 77 74 77 84 72 73 73 69 72 70 75 73 75 75
MARKYT® Community Priorities
Council affiliated respondents
95
1 Value for money from rates2 Council’s leadership3 Advocacy and lobbying4 Consultation5 Informing the community6 City Voice - City’s newsletter7 City’s website8 Social media presence9 Customer service
10 Economic development11 Promote as tourism destination12 City centre development13 Employment opportunities14 Education and training opportunities15 Youth services and facilities16 Seniors facilities, services and care17 Disability access18 Health and community services19 Community buildings, halls, toilets20 Sport and recreation facilities21 Playgrounds, parks and reserves22 Library and information services23 Festivals, events, art and culture24 Graffiti, vandalism, antisocial25 Safety and security26 Character and identity27 Planning and building approvals28 Access to housing29 Local roads30 Traffic management31 Management of parking32 Footpaths and cycleways33 Streetscapes34 Lighting35 Public transport36 Conservation and environment37 Coastal and estuary management38 Access to beaches, estuary, river39 Weekly rubbish collections40 Fortnightly recycling collections41 Verge-side bulk rubbish collections
Community Priorities
Low (<10%)
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (% of respondents)High (>10%)
Terr
ible
Oka
yEx
celle
nt
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E IN
DEX
SC
OR
E
Q. How would you rate performance in the following areas? Base: All respondents, excludes unsure and no response. (n=varies)Q. Which areas would you most like the Council to focus on improving? Base: All respondents, excludes no response (n = 27)Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd. © 2020
PRIORITISE
OPTIMISECELEBRATE
REVIEW
KAIZEN
Council affiliated
12
34
5
67
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
171819
2021
2223
24
25
26
27
2829303132
33
34
35
3637
38
394041
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Priority score only. Performance not measured.
www.catalyse.com.auOffice 3, 996 Hay Street, Perth WA 6000PO Box 8007, Cloisters Square WA 6850Phone +618 9226 5674Email: [email protected] 20 108 620 855