96
© Copyright CATALYSE ® Pty Ltd 2020 Community Scorecard © Prepared for: City of Mandurah Prepared by: CATALYSE ® Pty Ltd © November 2020

Community Scorecard

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Community Scorecard

© Copyright CATALYSE® Pty Ltd 2020

Community Scorecard ©

Prepared for: City of MandurahPrepared by: CATALYSE® Pty Ltd ©

November 2020

Page 2: Community Scorecard

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

Page 3: Community Scorecard

Strategic overview

Page 4: Community Scorecard

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

Page 5: Community Scorecard

Approach

Page 6: Community Scorecard

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

Page 7: Community Scorecard

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

Page 8: Community Scorecard

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

Page 9: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 10: Community Scorecard

Overall Performance

Page 11: Community Scorecard

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

Page 12: Community Scorecard

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

Page 13: Community Scorecard

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

Page 14: Community Scorecard

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

Page 15: Community Scorecard

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

Page 16: Community Scorecard

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

Page 17: Community Scorecard

Benchmark performance

Page 18: Community Scorecard

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

Page 19: Community Scorecard

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

Page 20: Community Scorecard

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

Page 21: Community Scorecard

Performance Trend Analysis

Page 22: Community Scorecard

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

Page 23: Community Scorecard

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

Page 24: Community Scorecard

Community Priorities

Page 25: Community Scorecard

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

Page 26: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 27: Community Scorecard

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

Page 28: Community Scorecard

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

Page 29: Community Scorecard

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

Page 30: Community Scorecard

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

Page 31: Community Scorecard

Familiarity with local services and facilities

Page 32: Community Scorecard

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

Page 33: Community Scorecard

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

Page 34: Community Scorecard

Governance

Page 35: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 36: Community Scorecard

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

Page 37: Community Scorecard

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

Page 38: Community Scorecard

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

Page 39: Community Scorecard

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

Page 40: Community Scorecard

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

Page 41: Community Scorecard

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

Page 42: Community Scorecard

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

Page 43: Community Scorecard

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

Page 44: Community Scorecard

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

Page 45: Community Scorecard

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

Page 46: Community Scorecard

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

Page 47: Community Scorecard

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

Page 48: Community Scorecard

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

Page 49: Community Scorecard

Economy

Page 50: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 51: Community Scorecard

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

Page 52: Community Scorecard

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

Page 53: Community Scorecard

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

Page 54: Community Scorecard

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

Page 55: Community Scorecard

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

Page 56: Community Scorecard

Community

Page 57: Community Scorecard

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

Page 58: Community Scorecard

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

Page 59: Community Scorecard

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

Page 60: Community Scorecard

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

Page 61: Community Scorecard

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

Page 62: Community Scorecard

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

Page 63: Community Scorecard

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

Page 64: Community Scorecard

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

Page 65: Community Scorecard

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

Page 66: Community Scorecard

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

Page 67: Community Scorecard

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

Page 68: Community Scorecard

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

Page 69: Community Scorecard

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

Page 70: Community Scorecard

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

Page 71: Community Scorecard

Place

Page 72: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 73: Community Scorecard

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

Page 74: Community Scorecard

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

Page 75: Community Scorecard

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

Page 76: Community Scorecard

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

Page 77: Community Scorecard

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

Page 78: Community Scorecard

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

Page 79: Community Scorecard

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

Page 80: Community Scorecard

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

Page 81: Community Scorecard

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

Page 82: Community Scorecard

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

Page 83: Community Scorecard

Planet

Page 84: Community Scorecard

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

Page 85: Community Scorecard

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

Page 86: Community Scorecard

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

Page 87: Community Scorecard

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

Page 88: Community Scorecard

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

Page 89: Community Scorecard

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

Page 90: Community Scorecard

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

Page 91: Community Scorecard

Overview of Community Variances

Page 92: Community Scorecard

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

Page 93: Community Scorecard

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

Page 94: Community Scorecard

MARKYT® Community Priorities

Council affiliated respondents

Page 95: Community Scorecard

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.

Page 96: Community Scorecard

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